on the officer's behalf, whereas if there is video evidence it might be obvious that the vic had no gun and that the cop had no justifiable reasons to believe so. i mean, i know its stating the obvious that video evidence is always beneficial, but im just venting. there is too much of this shit goin on seems like every week theres a new incident smh. i wish there was a nationwide campaign for ppl to automatically pull out their cellys when they see a cop. like operation film-a-cop. u see a cop talkn to somebody, AUTOMATICALLY film that shit. somebody. anybody. nationwide. put that shit on billboards, commercials, side of buses, wherever u can fit the slogan. im watchin you watchin me, nigga.

operation film-a-cop



>with Mike Brown, they outright said he was unarmed, but say
>Wilson thought he might have had a gun. you can't prove that
>Wilson didn't think that, unless he confesses otherwise.
>
>with Sean Bell, they said they thought he had a gun. you can't
>verify what people think.
>
>in this case, they said he had a gun that they recovered on
>the scene, and that he fired three shots at the officer. both
>of those things can be tested and verified, which leaves far
>less wiggle room.