Dr. Feelgood wrote:
Councilman Hegel wrote:The Hegelian Dialectic, is the reason for the body cams.
If Raja had a body cam, he would have shot Corey, on camera.
So, again, how will the body cams, increase intelligent physical approaches, when coming up on an emanate encounter?
Okay, got your point now. Here's a link explaining the Hegelian Dialectic for the deficient I.Q. LEOs: http://www.amerikanexpose.com/hegel/
The problem with placing such an abstract and inclusive structure as the H.D. in the "cause", or "reason" position within the context of micro-cultural (if you will) issues/events, is that the H.D., much like the sham "science" of Economics, does not, and cannot, accommodate real world/natural variables that necessarily will intrude on and subvert the impossible act, of reliably predicting and controlling the future movement and disposition of unpredictable, uncontrollable forces, upon which the invalid foundation of both of the aforementioned structures is built. (e.g. "blowback")
Having said that, "reliability" is certainly a matter of degree, just as the H.D. as a concept is a useful tool for understanding causation in many social contexts to a point. IMHO, the H.D. is far too blunt, and counter-productive a paradigm to be appropriate for reference in this case and thread, because it only serves as a deleterious distraction from the truth. Case in point, your comments:
First two sentences: Consist of two naked (without premises) conclusions, which (essentially) render the logical fallacy "begging the question". You cannot assert reliably the first sentence, because no one can accurately control or predict the most determinant variable the claim depends on - the future nature, cost, and pace, of technology and technological advancement. Moreover, even if I'm inclined to agree with the second conclusion/sentence, it simply does not necessarily follow from the first.
Last sentence/question: To begin with, despite the use of the term "again", you've chosen to ask a different question than you did earlier, which is just as irrelevant and/or obsolete as the first; the effects and effectiveness of using body cams has already been well established.
Take a deep breath man - you just aren't seeing the forest for the trees right now.
One of the post mention,
"City council votes 5-0 to have body cameras on all PBG officers in 2016.
That's a step in the right direction.
" That's a step in the right direction". ( Body Cam solution, Great HD Results).
Because there's an equivocation between proper training, and management, totally detached from the concept of body cams, being an issue.
And as in, "That's a step in the right direction", as somehow body cams has anything to do with the improper management, or , training, as in causalities of event.
I would agree that the HD is blunt, but not "too" blunt, certainly in this case, as stated by the audience, "That's a step in the right direction", seems to have work well.
Body cams, don't train. Body cams can't manage. Management, wants to pry, into the day to day activities, of their road officers, and prevent liabilities. And in the Corey Jones case, the cam most likely increase the liabilities.
The HD was successfully used, to throw a piece of red meat, to the public, so it would be received by the public as:
Unless it can be shown that the cams would have prevented the incident, the response,
"That's a step in the right direction" , was the fruit, of Hegel. .