Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 500414)

Not True - in fact, that's exactly what they were designed to do - and not just in terms of the nominee. Off the top of my head, I can think of (in no particulate order) platform fights on policy like free silver versus gold, dry versus wet, the ERA versus not, states rights versus civil rights, anti-war versus war, etc.

The current convention schedules of both parties don't anticipate this sort of thing any more, true. The last nasty floor battles were probably 1976 for the GOP and 1972 for the Democrats. But factions fighting over policies and candidates, and the majority of delegates making a decision one way or another, is precisely what party conventions were designed to do.

(I agree that a contested convention would be a clusterfuck but that's because of how the process (and how we view the process) has evolved, not because the design doesn't permit it.)

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 500414)

Not True - in fact, that's exactly what they were designed to do - and not just in terms of the nominee. Off the top of my head, I can think of (in no particulate order) platform fights on policy like free silver versus gold, dry versus wet, the ERA versus not, states rights versus civil rights, anti-war versus war, etc.

The current convention schedules of both parties don't anticipate this sort of thing any more, true. The last nasty floor battles were probably 1976 for the GOP and 1972 for the Democrats. But factions fighting over policies and candidates, and the majority of delegates making a decision one way or another, is precisely what party conventions were designed to do.

(I agree that a contested convention would be a clusterfuck but that's because of how the process (and how we view the process) has evolved, not because the design doesn't permit it.)

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 500417)

Agree completely. I used present tense and you used past. It would certainly be possible to design a convention as a fair and trusted process to resolve intra-party disputes in a way that everyone will accept as legitimate, but that is not what we have today.

eta: One huge problem is that the basic rules are in flux.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 500401)

There is, or at least there was, a fairly well-established body of case law allowing officers to exercise discretion in making arrests so long as it didn't endanger the public. I would hate for body cams to undermine all that.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 500412)

I don't think it's a legal question as much as the department's policy.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 500419)

my exchange with a top crim lawyer on why a cop would be bothered-

ME:
Okay, free legal work- I read a police talking about his feeling about how he now had to wear a body camera. He worked "gang drug" busts. He felt the camera would hamper him because he pulls people over every day that have a small amount of drugs and lets them go. He takes the dope and warns them but no arrest. He is after people with weight- he felt the camera will make it harder to let people go, but did not explain why. Any idea? The film of people he lets go will be used to create a bias argument?

ACTUAL TOP LAWYER:
He is absolutely correct. And it has nothing to do with a "bias argument". It has to do with problems with his supervisors at the department. If they see that he let someone go, they will want an explanation, blah, blah, blah. And he will get sick of that. I have said since all this stuff started that way fewer people are going to catch a break from the cops, even for traffic violations because of potential problems with supervisors, etc.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 500421)

I guess I was assuming most larger departments would want to conserve scarce resources, avoid federal court orders to relieve overcrowding in jails and prisons, etc.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 500419)

my exchange with a top crim lawyer on why a cop would be bothered-

ME:
Okay, free legal work- I read a police talking about his feeling about how he now had to wear a body camera. He worked "gang drug" busts. He felt the camera would hamper him because he pulls people over every day that have a small amount of drugs and lets them go. He takes the dope and warns them but no arrest. He is after people with weight- he felt the camera will make it harder to let people go, but did not explain why. Any idea? The film of people he lets go will be used to create a bias argument?

ACTUAL TOP LAWYER:
He is absolutely correct. And it has nothing to do with a "bias argument". It has to do with problems with his supervisors at the department. If they see that he let someone go, they will want an explanation, blah, blah, blah. And he will get sick of that. I have said since all this stuff started that way fewer people are going to catch a break from the cops, even for traffic violations because of potential problems with supervisors, etc.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 500416)

BTW, am I the only one who finds irony in Bernie railing against the "establishment" but being totally thrilled that he got to kiss the ring of the titular head of the "establishment"?

If you are looking for the "establishment" for Ethiopian Jazz, you want Mahmood Ahmed.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 500422)

I'll bet those warnings without arrests are more often given to white boys in beemers than black kids in bucket-of-bolts old chevys.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 500424)

That was excellent.

For Punjabi jazz, here is Red Baraat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqmYpArvehc

Originally Posted by pretty little flower (Post 500423)

as the type of person who might not "get a free pass" i would have otherwise gotten for some misconduct if there were no body cameras, i'm willing to take that chance if the cameras prevent one black kid from being gunned down.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 500423)

As the type of person who might not "get a free pass" I would have otherwise gotten for some misconduct if there were no body cameras, I'm willing to take that chance if the cameras prevent one black kid from being gunned down.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 500426)

Indian jazz is incredible. I didn't know them, a lot of fun, good stuff. You made a sale here.

Do you know the Indo-Pak coalition and Rudresh Mahanthappa ? And you probably know Vijay Iyer.