Obama asks Congress to fund 50,000 police body cameras

[webfact]

Obama asks Congress to fund 50,000 police body cameras

WASHINGTON: -- US President Barack Obama has requested $263m (£167m) to improve police training, pay for body cameras and restore trust in policing.

Mr Obama asked Congress for the funds after a week of nationwide protests over perceived policing injustices.

Ferguson in Missouri was rocked by riots after a grand jury failed to charge a white police officer in the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man.

Protests spread across the US and a mass walkout was held on Monday.

Students and workers held a lunchtime protest in several cities to highlight the issue.

"This is not a problem just of Ferguson, Missouri. This is a national problem, Mr Obama said. "But it's a solvable problem."

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30281735


-- BBC 2014-12-02

[lannarebirth]

If he's talking about federal police forces such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, Secret Service, etc, etc, all of which are controlled by the Executive Branch he has but to instruct the invidual heads of departments to budget for it. If he's talking about state and local governments it is absolutely none of his affair and reeks of pandering and shit stirring.

[KhunMoo]

If he's talking about federal police forces such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, Secret Service, etc, etc, all of which are controlled by the Executive Branch he has but to instruct the invidual heads of departments to budget for it. If he's talking about state and local governments it is absolutely none of his affair and reeks of pandering and shit stirring.

Never the less, it seems to be a very good idea, in The USA. To be honest, it seems that some parts of the Police force, is a bit out of control.

Edited December 2, 2014 by KhunMoo

[lannarebirth]

If he's talking about federal police forces such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, Secret Service, etc, etc, all of which are controlled by the Executive Branch he has but to instruct the invidual heads of departments to budget for it. If he's talking about state and local governments it is absolutely none of his affair and reeks of pandering and shit stirring.

Never the less, it seems to be a very good idea, in The USA. To be honest, it seems that some parts of the Police force, is a bit out of control.

No question its a good idea, along with de-militarizing the police and them carrying non lethal weapons. My point is it has absolutely nothing to do with the president. He's just riding on the coattails of an emotional issue to distract from his own spotty legacy.

[wwest5829]

If he's talking about federal police forces such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, Secret Service, etc, etc, all of which are controlled by the Executive Branch he has but to instruct the invidual heads of departments to budget for it. If he's talking about state and local governments it is absolutely none of his affair and reeks of pandering and shit stirring.

All law enforcement falls under the Executive Branch of U.S. Gov't. (State and local Executive Branch included). If you have surplus federal equipment being given to state or local police, or federal grants, well, there is the cross over. As to the U.S. President's business, if citizens are loosing a belief in a fair justice system, it better be in consideration of any President. The Federal role in law enforcement can be seen in state and local issues many times in U.S. history from striking workers to integration. 4th Amendment rights challenged...federal government involvement (I would hope).

Edited December 2, 2014 by wwest5829

[lannarebirth]

If he's talking about federal police forces such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, Secret Service, etc, etc, all of which are controlled by the Executive Branch he has but to instruct the invidual heads of departments to budget for it. If he's talking about state and local governments it is absolutely none of his affair and reeks of pandering and shit stirring.

All law enforcement falls under the Executive Branch of U.S. Gov't. (State and local Executive Branch included). If you have surplus federal equipment being given to state or local police, or federal grants, well, there is the cross over. As to the U.S. President's business, if citizens are loosing a belief in a fair justice system, it better be in consideration of any President. The Federal role in law enforcement can be seen in state and local issues many times in U.S. history from striking workers to integration. 4th Amendment rights challenged...federal government involvement (I would hope).

Here are two departments, Defense and Justice, that the Executive Branch has absolute control of that are lavishing military hardware on state and local police forces sowing mistrust and outright hatred of those forces by the local citizenry. The president could end it immediately with the stroke of a pen, yet he has not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/21/police-military-gear_n_5856762.html

[webfact]

Barack Obama vows to address 'simmering distrust' between police, minorities after Ferguson unrest
Mark Landler

Washington: United States President Barack Obama, grappling with how to respond to the racial unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, and a wave of anger at law enforcement officials across the country, said he would tighten standards on the provision of military-style equipment to local police departments and provide funds for police officers to wear cameras.

But Mr Obama stopped short of curtailing the transfer of military-grade gear to local law enforcement authorities and continued to put off a visit to Ferguson. Instead, the White House tried to channel the rage over the fatal police shooting of a black teenager there into a national debate about how to restore trust between the police and the public.

Administration officials said they concluded after a review that the vast majority of transfers of military-style equipment strengthened local policing, even after the police in Ferguson were criticised for heavy-handed use of such gear to quell protests in August.

Full story: http://www.theage.com.au/world/barack-obama-vows-to-address-simmering-distrust-between-police-minorities-after-ferguson-unrest-20141202-11ye19.html


-- The Age 2014-12-02

[NeverSure]

Military style gear? They sent in the national guard which has fighter jets and Blackhawk helicopters if needed.

And they are worried about the police having cast-off military hardware on the ground to protect the public from criminal looters and arsonists?

[slapout]

Obama has been in over his mental capacity since he got into politics, continue doing what he has been doing and it seems the American public is content to plug along with him, " :do nothing or step in another pile of dodo" which ever presents itself first.

[CMNightRider]

Police wearing body cameras and additional training is a good idea. Obama, and Holder should be wearing body camera too. Additional training wouldn't have hurt those two guys either.

[lil fluffy clouds]

How good is photo shop?

[BestBitterPhuket]

If he's talking about federal police forces such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, Secret Service, etc, etc, all of which are controlled by the Executive Branch he has but to instruct the invidual heads of departments to budget for it. If he's talking about state and local governments it is absolutely none of his affair and reeks of pandering and shit stirring.

Never the less, it seems to be a very good idea, in The USA. To be honest, it seems that some parts of the Police force, is a bit out of control.

No question its a good idea, along with de-militarizing the police and them carrying non lethal weapons. My point is it has absolutely nothing to do with the president. He's just riding on the coattails of an emotional issue to distract from his own spotty legacy.

So...you would raid a Mexican drug den in LA with batons while the criminals are waiting for you with AK-47s? Yeah, right...

[Guitar God]

A great idea whose time is overdue. I do not like the idea of officers having to manually start the camera though. If my $50 dashcam can record continuously and store a few hours of video, their $1000 cameras surely could record an entire shift before the video is overwritten.

From a NYT article:

THE Rialto study began in February 2012 and will run until this July. The results from the first 12 months are striking. Even with only half of the 54 uniformed patrol officers wearing cameras at any given time, the department over all had an 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against officers, compared with the 12 months before the study, to 3 from 24.

Rialto’s police officers also used force nearly 60 percent less often — in 25 instances, compared with 61. When force was used, it was twice as likely to have been applied by the officers who weren’t wearing cameras during that shift, the study found. And, lest skeptics think that the officers with cameras are selective about which encounters they record, Mr. Farrar noted that those officers who apply force while wearing a camera have always captured the incident on video.

[arjunadawn]

If he's talking about federal police forces such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, Secret Service, etc, etc, all of which are controlled by the Executive Branch he has but to instruct the invidual heads of departments to budget for it. If he's talking about state and local governments it is absolutely none of his affair and reeks of pandering and shit stirring.

Never the less, it seems to be a very good idea, in The USA. To be honest, it seems that some parts of the Police force, is a bit out of control.

Your avatar is Washington?

Ok, good ideas? No, this is a bad idea for the very reasons stated above: "It is none of [his] affair." It is none of federal governments business. One cannot point to one single thing for which the federal government has done lately for which is has real constitutional authority or actually even achieved its objective. Few recall one of Obamas priorities has been a lesser known desire to create or unify of national police force with near military capability- paraphrasing obama pretty closely.

Never let a crisis go to waste is the hallmark of obama, as described and stated by his chief of staff. It is a very bad thing to force through coercion or the withholding of money federal intrusion. Look at every other facet of life progressive apparatchiks have F--d up life in America. Cameras may be a good thing but not a federal option at all.

[MaxYakov]

If he's talking about federal police forces such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, Secret Service, etc, etc, all of which are controlled by the Executive Branch he has but to instruct the invidual heads of departments to budget for it. If he's talking about state and local governments it is absolutely none of his affair and reeks of pandering and shit stirring.

I think most thinking "folks" have figured out by now that whatever he's talking about (pushing) is probably a bad idea.

[wwest5829]

If he's talking about federal police forces such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, Secret Service, etc, etc, all of which are controlled by the Executive Branch he has but to instruct the invidual heads of departments to budget for it. If he's talking about state and local governments it is absolutely none of his affair and reeks of pandering and shit stirring.

All law enforcement falls under the Executive Branch of U.S. Gov't. (State and local Executive Branch included). If you have surplus federal equipment being given to state or local police, or federal grants, well, there is the cross over. As to the U.S. President's business, if citizens are loosing a belief in a fair justice system, it better be in consideration of any President. The Federal role in law enforcement can be seen in state and local issues many times in U.S. history from striking workers to integration. 4th Amendment rights challenged...federal government involvement (I would hope).

Here are two departments, Defense and Justice, that the Executive Branch has absolute control of that are lavishing military hardware on state and local police forces sowing mistrust and outright hatred of those forces by the local citizenry. The president could end it immediately with the stroke of a pen, yet he has not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/21/police-military-gear_n_5856762.html

Read a report recently noting that bureaucracies have a life of there own. I would like to know the names of those doing up with this program. I can understand the thinking but am opposed to the idea of greater militarization of the civil police force. The other this programmed begged was that if there is so much excess equipment maybe we can cut the military budget due to the waste. I have not studied the issue so am leery of trying to proclaim an understanding. On first glance I am opposed to what has been reported in the press. I am looking to issues being addressed but not heeping more criticism on Obama. He is visibly aging fast enough in office. This is but one item on his plate.

[wwest5829]

If he's talking about federal police forces such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, Secret Service, etc, etc, all of which are controlled by the Executive Branch he has but to instruct the invidual heads of departments to budget for it. If he's talking about state and local governments it is absolutely none of his affair and reeks of pandering and shit stirring.

Never the less, it seems to be a very good idea, in The USA. To be honest, it seems that some parts of the Police force, is a bit out of control.

Your avatar is Washington?

Ok, good ideas? No, this is a bad idea for the very reasons stated above: "It is none of [his] affair." It is none of federal governments business. One cannot point to one single thing for which the federal government has done lately for which is has real constitutional authority or actually even achieved its objective. Few recall one of Obamas priorities has been a lesser known desire to create or unify of national police force with near military capability- paraphrasing obama pretty closely.

Never let a crisis go to waste is the hallmark of obama, as described and stated by his chief of staff. It is a very bad thing to force through coercion or the withholding of money federal intrusion. Look at every other facet of life progressive apparatchiks have F--d up life in America. Cameras may be a good thing but not a federal option at all.

Damn those seat belt laws where the federal gov't threatened a cutoff of highway funds if states did not adopt mandatory seat belt laws.... Sorry, I am in favor of progress if it adds the the greater welfare of the American people. If it were not so, we would all still have outhouses and unsafe drinking water, as well.

[arjunadawn]

If he's talking about federal police forces such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, Secret Service, etc, etc, all of which are controlled by the Executive Branch he has but to instruct the invidual heads of departments to budget for it. If he's talking about state and local governments it is absolutely none of his affair and reeks of pandering and shit stirring.

Never the less, it seems to be a very good idea, in The USA. To be honest, it seems that some parts of the Police force, is a bit out of control.

Your avatar is Washington?

Ok, good ideas? No, this is a bad idea for the very reasons stated above: "It is none of [his] affair." It is none of federal governments business. One cannot point to one single thing for which the federal government has done lately for which is has real constitutional authority or actually even achieved its objective. Few recall one of Obamas priorities has been a lesser known desire to create or unify of national police force with near military capability- paraphrasing obama pretty closely.

Never let a crisis go to waste is the hallmark of obama, as described and stated by his chief of staff. It is a very bad thing to force through coercion or the withholding of money federal intrusion. Look at every other facet of life progressive apparatchiks have F--d up life in America. Cameras may be a good thing but not a federal option at all.

Damn those seat belt laws where the federal gov't threatened a cutoff of highway funds if states did not adopt mandatory seat belt laws.... Sorry, I am in favor of progress if it adds the the greater welfare of the American people. If it were not so, we would all still have outhouses and unsafe drinking water, as well.

I don't consider it progress, I consider it regressive. Progress suggests moving toward the new, evolution. This is not evolution. After all, we have repeated histories of governments with overwhelming power and the slippery slope that ensued from such unchecked authority; in fact, much of the US jurisprudence is predicated upon facts not responded to or rebuked becoming new facts of precedent. Indeed, it has been said (paraphrase) "when we exchange our freedoms for safety we lose both and deserve neither." Society is filled with examples of smart choices that have aided our culture, improved the quality of life, and seem on the face, a good idea. However, this is not the purview of the Federal, this is a states issue. The Federal powers are few and clearly enumerated; all other powers belong to the States. Using the stalking horse of the Commerce Clause and perversion of

the 10th amendment, enumerable acts have now been inflicted upon the American people under the guise of "For the Children" and other sick, twisted language that serves to obfuscate rather than really explain the authority. The Federal government is supposed to be tightly shackled in a constitutional prison. Noting that it is run amuck, and that American is a dystopia, it can be reasonably concluded that among the causes of the problems is the asinine, endless levy of laws and regulations devolving from a detached Federal Branch upon the American people like fiat, or decree. Whenever a rule or law must appeal to the emotive rather than cite its authority one should grease up because they will be bent over.

I hardly think it is reasonable logic to presume that there would be no bathrooms nor safe drinking water had x y z not happened. It is invariably true that when people decide to do something they can act locally. There have always been Federalists and Anti Federalists, however, the argument is supposed to be relatively settled by the construction of law, our constitution and Bill of Rights. In this expression the points of view on both sides were worked out in convention and consensus achieved.The increasing federalization of every aspect of American life is not familial, loving Dear Uncle care. It is oppressive and history informs us that for every act of unchecked usurpation by an overwhelming force- government- that power further colaces and risks despotism. Having a nationalized police force or the seeds toward that end is a dream worthy of the Stasi!

[cookee68]

Most of this rioting is to do with the colour of peoples skin,

[LawrenceChee]

Stop the racism and you don't need all these overkill equipment and forces

[mania]

I don't consider it progress, I consider it regressive. Progress suggests moving toward the new, evolution. This is not evolution. After all, we have repeated histories of governments with overwhelming power and the slippery slope that ensued from such unchecked authority; in fact, much of the US jurisprudence is predicated upon facts not responded to or rebuked becoming new facts of precedent. Indeed, it has been said (paraphrase) "when we exchange our freedoms for safety we lose both and deserve neither." Society is filled with examples of smart choices that have aided our culture, improved the quality of life, and seem on the face, a good idea. However, this is not the purview of the Federal, this is a states issue. The Federal powers are few and clearly enumerated; all other powers belong to the States. Using the stalking horse of the Commerce Clause and perversion of

the 10th amendment, enumerable acts have now been inflicted upon the American people under the guise of "For the Children" and other sick, twisted language that serves to obfuscate rather than really explain the authority. The Federal government is supposed to be tightly shackled in a constitutional prison. Noting that it is run amuck, and that American is a dystopia, it can be reasonably concluded that among the causes of the problems is the asinine, endless levy of laws and regulations devolving from a detached Federal Branch upon the American people like fiat, or decree. Whenever a rule or law must appeal to the emotive rather than cite its authority one should grease up because they will be bent over.

I hardly think it is reasonable logic to presume that there would be no bathrooms nor safe drinking water had x y z not happened. It is invariably true that when people decide to do something they can act locally. There have always been Federalists and Anti Federalists, however, the argument is supposed to be relatively settled by the construction of law, our constitution and Bill of Rights. In this expression the points of view on both sides were worked out in convention and consensus achieved.The increasing federalization of every aspect of American life is not familial, loving Dear Uncle care. It is oppressive and history informs us that for every act of unchecked usurpation by an overwhelming force- government- that power further colaces and risks despotism. Having a nationalized police force or the seeds toward that end is a dream worthy of the Stasi!

Hear Hear !

[Chicog]

I don't consider it progress, I consider it regressive. Progress suggests moving toward the new, evolution. This is not evolution. After all, we have repeated histories of governments with overwhelming power and the slippery slope that ensued from such unchecked authority; in fact, much of the US jurisprudence is predicated upon facts not responded to or rebuked becoming new facts of precedent. Indeed, it has been said (paraphrase) "when we exchange our freedoms for safety we lose both and deserve neither." Society is filled with examples of smart choices that have aided our culture, improved the quality of life, and seem on the face, a good idea. However, this is not the purview of the Federal, this is a states issue. The Federal powers are few and clearly enumerated; all other powers belong to the States. Using the stalking horse of the Commerce Clause and perversion of

the 10th amendment, enumerable acts have now been inflicted upon the American people under the guise of "For the Children" and other sick, twisted language that serves to obfuscate rather than really explain the authority. The Federal government is supposed to be tightly shackled in a constitutional prison. Noting that it is run amuck, and that American is a dystopia, it can be reasonably concluded that among the causes of the problems is the asinine, endless levy of laws and regulations devolving from a detached Federal Branch upon the American people like fiat, or decree. Whenever a rule or law must appeal to the emotive rather than cite its authority one should grease up because they will be bent over.

I hardly think it is reasonable logic to presume that there would be no bathrooms nor safe drinking water had x y z not happened. It is invariably true that when people decide to do something they can act locally. There have always been Federalists and Anti Federalists, however, the argument is supposed to be relatively settled by the construction of law, our constitution and Bill of Rights. In this expression the points of view on both sides were worked out in convention and consensus achieved.The increasing federalization of every aspect of American life is not familial, loving Dear Uncle care. It is oppressive and history informs us that for every act of unchecked usurpation by an overwhelming force- government- that power further colaces and risks despotism. Having a nationalized police force or the seeds toward that end is a dream worthy of the Stasi!

Hear Hear !

On the subject of water, I'd recommend a PBS documentary series called "How we got to now", one episode of which is called "Clean" and covers the history of cleanliness, including Water.

On the subject of federal intrusion, this story about the FBI invoking a 1789 law to force intrusion into encrypted devices says it all; it seems they will stop at nothing.

DOJ Using Antiquated 1789 'All Writs Act' To Try To Force Phone Manufacturers To Help Unlock Encrypted Phones from the any-and-all-methods dept

With the ongoing fight over mobile encryption in the last few months, it's no secret that law enforcement has been pushing for new laws that require backdoors into encrypted offerings. However, the Wall Street Journal also noted another little trick that the Justice Department appears to be testing out: dumping the problem back on the phone manufacturer, by using a centuries old law to require the [nameless] phone manufacturer to help law enforcement decrypt a phone. And, Ars Technica then found another example of it being used on the very same day in a different case to try to pressure Apple into helping to decrypt a phone.

Specifically, the DOJ used the All Writs Act -- a 1789 law, that is now codified as 28 USC 1651. It's pretty straightforward (and broad):

(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

(

An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141129/07385129274/doj-using-antiquated-1789-all-writs-act-to-try-to-force-phone-manufacturers-to-help-unlock-encrypted-phones.shtml

[Krataiboy]

It's the public, not the police, who need to be issued with body cameras to show which bits of them the totally out-of-control US cops are tasering, shooting and beating.

Welcome to the Land of the Free which tries to tell the rest of the world how they should lead civilised lives.

[lannarebirth]

If he's talking about federal police forces such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, Secret Service, etc, etc, all of which are controlled by the Executive Branch he has but to instruct the invidual heads of departments to budget for it. If he's talking about state and local governments it is absolutely none of his affair and reeks of pandering and shit stirring.

Never the less, it seems to be a very good idea, in The USA. To be honest, it seems that some parts of the Police force, is a bit out of control.

No question its a good idea, along with de-militarizing the police and them carrying non lethal weapons. My point is it has absolutely nothing to do with the president. He's just riding on the coattails of an emotional issue to distract from his own spotty legacy.

So...you would raid a Mexican drug den in LA with batons while the criminals are waiting for you with AK-47s? Yeah, right...

I imagine in a raid you'd be expecting trouble and the police tend to use the "overwhelming force" doctrine, which in those situations seems appropriate. I'm talking about the fact if that if police have no non lethal options then people are going to get killed needlessly. You know that old expression "when the only tool you've got in your toolbox is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail"?

Anyhow, even with non lethal weapons police act inappropriately, but it doesn't end in the death of innocents. In this case only maiming.

http://news.yahoo.com/pregnant-st--louis-woman-left-eye-blind-ferguson-174119853.html

[Roadman]

A great idea whose time is overdue. I do not like the idea of officers having to manually start the camera though. If my $50 dashcam can record continuously and store a few hours of video, their $1000 cameras surely could record an entire shift before the video is overwritten.

From a NYT article:

THE Rialto study began in February 2012 and will run until this July. The results from the first 12 months are striking. Even with only half of the 54 uniformed patrol officers wearing cameras at any given time, the department over all had an 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against officers, compared with the 12 months before the study, to 3 from 24.

Rialtos police officers also used force nearly 60 percent less often in 25 instances, compared with 61. When force was used, it was twice as likely to have been applied by the officers who werent wearing cameras during that shift, the study found. And, lest skeptics think that the officers with cameras are selective about which encounters they record, Mr. Farrar noted that those officers who apply force while wearing a camera have always captured the incident on video.

Understandable....applied to an area where a lot of us push the boundaries....driving. One knows a speed camera is around one modifies their offending level down. Likewise where security cameras are around then taking that pee behind the tree or throwing rubbish out the car window behavior is toned down. Likewise idiots confronted with cameras unless drunk, drugged or other mental impairments are going to tone their behavior down. Agree. Would like to see on my home country cops as well. Confrontation numbers down between cops and the other party has got to be a winner no matter which group is at at fault or perceived to be. Edited December 3, 2014 by Roadman

[cup-O-coffee]

The sad fact here is that the USA has a so called President that needs camera footage to understand... what? So, Mr. President, you have ignored the raw statistics on paper, and rather instead need TV time to understand your problem?

The problem with blacks in the USA (and it is a problem) is so far beyond "raw camera footage" that it is incomprehensible that the President is asking for this, and moreover it truly magnifies his bias and/or his utter ignorance and cowardice towards "raw statistics", ...which he has on his desk to read, and which I should not have to post herein.

EDIT: Dear Mr. President... I found the best body camera footage in the world, and it's free. While you are waiting for the police to get their cameras and to get "raw footage" so that you and Mr. Holder and the very very Reverend Sharpton can sit down and watch it and try to figure out how to blame it on the whites, maybe you can fill some of that time and watch this...

Incidentally, Mr. President, I went to YouTube and typed in White on Black crime and the results came back Black on White crimes. Thousands of videos showing your darlings beating whites into unconsciousness. You might want to consider reviewing the Internet social media movies before you ask your police to set themselves up for blame from yourself, Mr. Holder and the very very Reverend Sharpton.

Coward!

Edited December 3, 2014 by cup-O-coffee

[cup-O-coffee]

The sad fact here is that the USA has a so called President that needs camera footage to understand... what? So, Mr. President, you have ignored the raw statistics on paper, and rather instead need TV time to understand your problem?

The problem with blacks in the USA (and it is a problem) is so far beyond "raw camera footage" that it is incomprehensible that the President is asking for this, and moreover it truly magnifies his bias and/or his utter ignorance and cowardice towards "raw statistics", ...which he has on his desk to read, and which I should not have to post herein.

EDIT: Dear Mr. President... I found the best body camera footage in the world, and it's free. While you are waiting for the police to get their cameras and to get "raw footage" so that you and Mr. Holder and the very very Reverend Sharpton can sit down and watch it and try to figure out how to blame it on the whites, maybe you can fill some of that time and watch this...

Incidentally, Mr. President, I went to YouTube and typed in White on Black crime and the results came back Black on White crimes. Thousands of videos showing your darlings beating whites into unconsciousness. You might want to consider reviewing the Internet social media movies before you ask your police to set themselves up for blame from yourself, Mr. Holder and the very very Reverend Sharpton.

Coward!

Begging everyone's pardon:

Dear Mr. President,

The American people need action now. No! Not only those American people, or even the ones who aren't Americans, yet are in the USA now.

You ask for cameras and want to spend even more of the victim's tax paying dollars to fund yet another project that is baseless. It is baseless because you have the social media out there in full force. You have blogs to read. But the most damning thing you have is social media captured on people's camera phones and ipads. It shows it all. Why on earth do you need to re-invent the wheel to see what is already available and free?

The answer is clear to me, and I can understand why Benghazi happened... you were waiting for something else to show you what was already ready for you to see and what you already know to be the truth, ...and that, Mr. President, tells me that you are not a good representative of the American people and the defenders of the Constitution of the USA.

What your are, in my opinion is not within the allowances of this website for me to print. Regrettably, I think you must realize that in passing thought towards your apparent goal to nurture and encourage your shock troops (what else could it be), yet do not give a hoot. Give my regards to your shock troop commander, the very very Reverend Sharpton.

On the other hand, there is always enough time if a person comes clean and does the right thing, but I don't think you have it in you.

[Chicog]

The problem with blacks in the USA (and it is a problem)...

The problem is in that sentence.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Chicog

[chuckd]

The problem with blacks in the USA (and it is a problem)...

The problem is in that sentence.

And selective editing is the problem with the last post.

The complete original sentence follows:

"The problem with blacks in the USA (and it is a problem) is so far beyond "raw camera footage" that it is incomprehensible that the President is asking for this, and moreover it truly magnifies his bias and/or his utter ignorance and cowardice towards "raw statistics", ...which he has on his desk to read, and which I should not have to post herein.

[Chicog]

The problem with blacks in the USA (and it is a problem)...

The problem is in that sentence.

And selective editing is the problem with the last post.

The complete original sentence follows:

"The problem with blacks in the USA (and it is a problem) is so far beyond "raw camera footage" that it is incomprehensible that the President is asking for this, and moreover it truly magnifies his bias and/or his utter ignorance and cowardice towards "raw statistics", ...which he has on his desk to read, and which I should not have to post herein.

The rest of the sentences makes no difference.

When you start a sentence with "The problem with blacks" you are essentially making a sweeping racist comment.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Chicog