Author Archives: Rosalio

About Rosalio

From San Antonio, TX. Currently undeclared but plan on transferring into Liberal Arts.

Why Police Body Cams Will Not Solve Problem.

Williams C., Lauren. “Why Cameras Alone Won’t Solve Our Police Abuse Problem.” ThinkProgress, 19 Aug. 2014. Web. 11 Aug. 2015.


Lauren C. Williams’s article “Why Cameras Alone Won’t Solve Our Police Abuse Problem” discusses the possibility that videos from police cameras can be subjected to abuse if not carefully mitigated during police reform just like other law enforcement tools. This idea comes from the statements of Hanni Fakuory, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. Fakuory also states that the “use of video footage of police misconduct doesn’t always yield justice.”

Within the article Fakuory provides two reasons behind her claim of police body cameras subjecting abuse. Her first reason states that Justice is not guaranteed. She begins stating that “witnesses’ and police video recordings, even those that may be damming, have not consistently led to convictions in the past of police accused of violating citizens’ rights.” She then offers a couple of examples, one pertaining to a Chicago police officer who was not charged despite video footage showing him standing over a victim’s body fatally shooting the unarmed man on in 2013. Another example she offers is an incident that happened earlier this year. Police officers caught on tape beating a schizophrenic homeless man to death were acquitted by a jury. As videos go viral of police abuse, little legal action has been sparked. As Fakuory’s final example, she brings up the Eric Garner case stating that no charges have been brought against the officers involved in his death even after the medical examiner ruled the killing a homicide. Instead, the officer who fired the deadly shot was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter instead of murder.

As some police departments have adopted body cameras, Fakuory suggest that others have rejected the technology after learning that Los Angeles police officers were caught disabling voice recording equipment on about 50 squad cars, most of which were used to patrol low-income communities densely populated with people of color. And in cases where cameras are used, departments frequently deny request for footage or tamper footage before its release.

Fakuory’s second reason supporting her claim surrounds the potential for abuse. She states “when it comes to technology, there’s the potential for abuse.” Overall law enforcement’s history with technology tends to follow the same pattern: “when they get new tools, they use them aggressively especially as these things get smaller and easier to use.” She begins to compare body cameras to what happened when police forces began using tasers and mace. Although these methods were introduced as a non-lethal way to subdue suspects, they have become prone to abuse. Fakuory closes with evidence within the New York Police Department that support her claim of lethal force.

Although I do agree with Fakuory’s reasoning in that even if video footage is provided, officers in some cases do in fact do not get charged with their actions towards civilians. In a sense, just because we capture events on camera it does not mean justice will be served as much as we would like to see it be. However, I completely disagree with her comparison of video cameras to other tools such as tasers and mace. This comparison is outrageous and should not be believed by the audience due to it being a clearly false analogy. This analogy compares two things that share no similarity, and in this case body cameras have nothing to do with mace and tasers. Fakuory wants the audience to believe that these cameras could become a lethal force, which is ridiculous to think about. Would such a camera become a blunt weapon of some sort? Ultimately resulting in her uncanny argument.



Filed under Blog Post 4

Police Body Camera Captures the Truth

Feeney, Matthew. “DuBose Killing Highlights Importance of Police Body Cameras” Cato Institute, 29 July 2015. Web. 3 August 2015.

The controversy I am discussing is the use of body cameras on police uniforms. This article relates to my first primary source because it enhances a premium recent example of camera use on officers. The first article I used explains reasons why police officers should wear cameras. This article follows the discussion, but focuses on a very specific incident that further glorifies the push for all police officer’s to wear body cameras. This article teaches me that the speaker is very informative about the event and the overall controversy. The source also effectively explains in detail the reasoning behind the advantage of the use of cameras to an audience that cares for overall safety, security, and justice. The article wants to truly make the audience understand the importance of camera use on officers.

Author of this article, Matthew Feeney, is credible due to his writing which references recent and relevant information such as statements from local authority figures in Hamilton County, in which the incident occurred. Feeney is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, but worked at Reason magazine as assistant editor before coming to Cato. He has also worked for The American Conservative, the Liberal Democrats, and the Institute of Economic Affairs. The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Cato is believed to be a trusted source due to its scholars and analysts conducting independent nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues for the public. This article also presents element’s that indicate careful research such as the placed evidence of a NBC NEWS video that shows the officer involved in the incident body cam footage.

Feeney begins the article with the backstory of the University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing shooting and killing 43-year-old Samuel DuBose on July 19th during a traffic stop. Stating that Tensing will face murder and manslaughter charges, Feeney provides statements from Hamilton County prosecutor Joe Deters. Deters calls the killing “senseless” and openly states “the body camera footage of the killing was invaluable. Without it, many would probably have believed Tensing’s erroneous account of the incident.” Referring to the knowledge of Tensing creating lies that he was dragged by DuBose’s vehicle.

Feeney then states “DuBose’s death demonstrates once again that body camera are not police misconduct stoppers.” Further explaining this statement, Feeney reinstates the fact the Tensing knew his body camera was on, but ultimately continued to shoot the unarmed man in the head over a simple missing license plate dispute. Nonetheless, the incident does provide how body camera footage can be useful to officials investigating allegations of police misconduct.

Statements from Cincinnati Police Chief Jeffery Blackwell are then introduced by Feeney. Blackwell states that technology that highlights incidents of police misconduct must be welcomed by advocates of accountability and transparency in law enforcement. Deters then adds, “the body camera led to Tensing’s murder indictment” as his conclusion.

Overall, Feeney results to statements from Blackwell and Deters to set motion his claim that police officers should wear body cameras. Because, as Feeney states, “if it weren’t for the body cam footage, Tensing will still be employed as a Cincinnati police officer rather than being behind bars.” Concluding that in the case of Dubose’s killing, a camera can be instrumental in investigating police misconduct and getting dangerous officers off the streets.


Filed under RS 4

Volvo Advertisement

Volvo Advertisement


Filed under Blog Post 3

“Should Cops Wear Cameras?”

Griggs, Brandon. “Should Cops Wear Cameras?” CNN. Cable News Network, 2 January 2015. Web. 29 July 2015.

In Brandon Griggs’s Article, “Should Cops Wear Cameras,” Griggs discusses the controversy of whether police officer’s should wear body cameras while on duty. Throughout the article, Griggs refers to public authorities such as the Obama Administration, Deputy Assistant to the President Roy L. Austin Jr, the Department of Justice, and New York Mayor Bill De Blasio who all agree upon and argue that video cameras mounted on officer’s uniforms will provide accurate accounts with encounters and discourage misconduct by police officers themselves.

Griggs appears to be a very credible source to his intended audience of individuals who believe police officers should wear video cameras. Brandon Griggs is a senior producer with CNN Digital, specializing in coverage of pop culture and entertainment. Before coming to CNN Brandon spent 13 years as an award-winning reporter and columnist at the Salt Lake Tribune in Salt Lake City, Utah. Griggs provides a good amount of sources to present research such as a report fro the Department of Justice and a study conducted by the Rialto Police Department in California in 2013. Also, Griggs references recent information that is relevant to the argument, such as the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and the death of Eric Garner surrounding New York police officers. As this article is published on CNN, it could be deemed credible due to CNN being a widely well known and respected 24 hour news network. Griggs uses this information to display his stance on the argument and to show his credibility as an editor.

In the article, Griggs argues in support of Roy L. Austin jr’s report by the Department of Justice, that police and civilians act in a more positive manner when aware that a video camera is present. Also, from a study conducted in 2013 by the Rialto, California police department Griggs in support argues that public complaints towards officers has plunges and the use of force by officers have declined since the use of video cameras. He states that the police departments that have experimented with officer-worn cameras, have show nearly results that have been encouraging (Griggs)

Through thorough research and an effective writing style, Griggs establishes his overall credibility with the audience of the article. He uses many research studies, as well as outside comments from public figures to support his extensive argument. Data received from one study conducted by the Rialto, California police department as  and also a report from the Department of Justice are used as mentioned. Another source used by Griggs involves the White House’s website to gain support for his argument and explains the ongoing public petition that already has more that 150,000 signature’s urging that all law enforcement agencies should be required to wear cameras (Griggs). Griggs states that, “early results have been encouraging” therefore before believing that body cameras are indeed working (Griggs). The incorporation of events that have taken place regarding incidents where the use of police body cameras come into play such as the Eric Garner case, Griggs provides statements from New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio.”When something happens, to have a video record of it from the police officer’s perspective, it’s going to help in many, many ways,” de Blasio said (Griggs). Ending the article with such a statement by Blasio, Griggs seems to confess to the audience his stance on the issue as throughout the article he slowly reveals. Overall I think that Griggs speaks to an audience that shares his views very clearly in support of getting police officers to wear body video cameras. ending with another quote by Bilasio, Griggs hopes he captured and changed the viewpoint of many readers. “It’s going to improve the work of law enforcement. And God forbid, when something goes wrong, we’re going to have a clear understanding of what happened and whatever approaches we need to take as a result.”


Filed under RS 3

My Communities

A place where my strongest commitments lie would be within the Hispanic community. This community is not only full of heritage and rich in culture, but also reflects values that I and many others hold. I believe that this community means the most to me, out of the list I created of many other communities I belong to, because it allows me to think in a certain manner. When I say think, I mean it as a way of being part of my daily routine in life. Being Hispanic provides a viewpoint that only few understand.

My values are enriched within this community more than meets the eye. As a Hispanic, I believe many individuals look down upon this very community. Not only out of negative intention but simply in a general aspect of life. This meaning that our community is faced with assumptions that we are only capable of doing so much that our roots and backgrounds will not allow us to achieve better qualifications or improvements within our lives. Therefore, as a part of this community I strive for success to prove individuals wrong and achieve for myself while spreading a movement that will sure be followed by many others to do the same. For ourselves and for our Hispanic comminute.

My feelings and viewpoint about my Hispanic community comes from a personal experience of being stereotyped that I have lived through. Typically I always personally get from strangers that “I will never achieve a high position anywhere I go because I can only do so much”. Comments like these just make me stronger and push harder towards my goals. Roughly not even 1 months ago before Summer Bridge, my family went on a mini vacation to Rhode Island to visit a cousin. Long story short, I walked into a store with a UT shirt on and when I was going to make my purchases before I could say hello, the lady at the cashier asked how I was going to pay for my things. I simply replied, “In cash” and she replied back “of course you will like all you others”. I did not know how to respond as I was in clear disbelief. She then bluntly told me that I should wear “college shirts that I know I could get into”. I will skip what happened next solely because it escalated very quickly due to her fixed assumptions of my Hispanic community. However, situations like this only make me stronger as I stated before.

Another community I associate myself to be a part of is the single parent community. Many assume that individuals who have only one parent for numerous reasons such as divorce, generally take the “wrong path”. This assumption gets truly annoying and has no meaning. I come from divorced parents and look where I am now. Achieving great things with my life. If anything, the value I hold within this community is that it has made me stronger and shaped me into the person I am today.

One organization that I have found using the Hornslink database is the Hispanic Student Association. The student organization offered on campus states that it helps providing support and improve society for all. Which is generally good. Also, this organization will give support and overall give me a place where I can enjoy myself and make a change within my community.


Filed under Blog Post 2

Gateway Drug Myth

Nogueria, Felipe. “Where Drug Myths Die: An Interview with Carl Hart.” EBSOHOST. Skeptic. 2015. Web. 18 July 2015.

Within this article Author Felipe Nogueira provides an Interview between himself and Carl Hart, an Associate Professor in the departments of Psychology and Psychiatry at Columbia University. As a research scientist in the Division of Substance Abuse at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, Hart argues his reasoning when asked about marijuana, which is perceived by many as a gateway drug.

Nogueria deems Dr. Hart as the myth buster of drugs due to his highly credited background before asking for response to the first posed question upon skeptics, which is “Many people believe marijuana is a gateway drug. Is it?” Dr. Hart simply states that marijuana is not a gateway drug although he adds that “it is true that people who use heroin and cocaine used marijuana before these drugs.” He explains this reasoning by suggesting to look at the facts. The vast majority of marijuana users don’t continue to move to those harder drugs, therefore it is not a gateway drug as he puts it. Adding an example to this illogical sort of stamen, Dr. Hart says “It would be like saying that “the last three presidents of the United States used marijuana before they became president. Therefore, Marijuana is a gateway drug to the White House”.” Ultimately debunking, in a joking matter, the theory generally speaking.

When asked about addiction, which holds a relation to the gateway theory, Dr. Hart provides the definition of drug addiction: “Is behavior that disrupts your psychosocial functions, your job, your family life, and these behavioral disruptions have to occur on multiple occasions.” Arguing that addiction requires “work”. In order to become addicted such behavioral disruptions must happen on multiple occasions. Anything taken once does not cause anyone to become addicted. Thus, by definition it is not addiction.

Answering more questions relating to other drug abuse usage Hart is asked about how many believe marijuana or cocaine kills nerve cells. Dr. Hart responds that any drug taken in large doses could have the ability do kill brain cells. He continues stating that such doses are 20-80 times larger than what people usually take. Also, Dr. Hart argues that the rate of addiction of marijuana is very low at 10% at I in 3 people compared to the 33% of people who will become addicted to tobacco and 15% to alcohol.

This interview has given valuable and credible insight on the question of marijuana being a gateway drug. Having a source as such provides a better understanding of where I personally stand on the issue and further enhances my viewpoint. Dr. Hart clearly states his own opinion based on the science of it all, which is more reliable and closer to the truth. Overall, this interview should ultimately clear perhaps not all but some myths surrounding marijuana and its use as a gateway drug.


Filed under RS 2