Yoo hoo, Pyr, if you care about black lives, answer me this

[Pete at Home]

"In a huge victory for the Black Lives Matter movement and activists in Chicago, the highly criticised Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez has lost her re-election bid.

Ms  Alvarez faced scathing criticism for waiting over a year to file murder charges against the Chicago police officer who shot an unarmed teenager 16 times. Ms Alvarez did so only after a judge ordered camera footage of the incident to become public. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel dismissed his police chief over the death of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald"

Note that Pyr argues that body cams are at best a "bandaid" solution to unnecessary police violence.  :rolleyes: and that Seattle-BLM thug Marissa Johnson, the one who hijacked Sanders' visit to Seattle and tried to enforce 4.5 minutes of silence on a baited crowd, also busted up a Seattle meeting to discuss cop body cams, saying "I don't need to see the home videos of my oppressor." [sic]

Pyr has spent pages on this forum and its previous iteration, accusing anyone who doesn't fawn over inarticulate protesters, that we're opposed to their "message," but refuses himself to articulate what that message is, or what specific measures should be implemented to save black lives.  It seems that Black Lives don't actually matter as much as running around screaming that black lives matter.

From OrneryMod: I edited the title to something more appropriate.

[D.W.]

As much as Pyr's posts tend to get under my skin, he doesn't (often?) claim to speak for the protesters.

Is this your morning cardio?  Tryin to get the blood pumping?  So fiesty! 

[Pete at Home]

I'm energized because I just found that article which illustrates BLM's greatest victory so far which came about because of camera footage.

Pyr's more interested in playing Marissa Johnson's white knight than actually discussing issues and solution to the problems that encroach on Black Lives.  They don't actually want the killings to stop; they like these loud funerals.  It seems that to Pyr and Marissa, black deaths matter more than black lives.

[AI Wessex]

You're back in your pick a fight, never let it go mode again.  Pyrtolin has said repeatedly (and generally politely -- far more than you) that he's trying not to draw conclusions.  You keep insisting that if he doesn't draw *your* conclusions that he's being argumentative.  You've dragged me into many "fights" like this.  It's no fun to be in and no fun to watch.  Try running if it's a cardio thing, much healthier than what you're doing on the forum.

[Pete at Home]

[snip personal attacks]

At least when Al has nothing coherent to say, he doesn't hijack a stage with threats and hold people hostage while he struggles to articulate something.

Still, it appears Al shares Pyr's vision that "Black Lives Matter" is all about kissing the ass of inarticulate protesters, rather than discussing facts and looking for real solutions.

I've proposed a solid albeit partial solution, body cams on cops, which Marissa Johnson (how white a name is that?) objects to as watching the "home movies" of her "oppressor."  I've shown that disclosing camera footage was key to charging a cop with murdering an unarmed black American.  But Pyr and Al refuse to articulate any actual discussion of the underlying issues that cause the unnecessary deaths of unarmed black Americans, or to identify any actions we might take towards a solution.  Pyr only mocks the body cams as a "band aid" and offers nothing in its place.  But they come out like flies on picnic day to attack anyone who Marissa.

Pyr draws plenty of conclusions, hasty illiterate conclusions, about my motives and thinking process.  He concludes that Marissa Johnson should be credited of getting the "BLM message" out where it wasn't out before.  And yet he cannot even articulate that "message."  Well if it's out, then what the *censored* is it?

As for "politeness," I've said nothing as hostile or rude as Pyr's accusation that I'm only upset with Marissa because she got her "message" out.  That's a conclusion, and more demeaning than anything I've said about you or Pyr.  You pretend to think that if you say hateful things in a mincing way, that it's "polite."  But when someone does the same to you, you know better and get as angry as I do when someone TomDavidsons you.

[Pete at Home]

"  You keep insisting that if he doesn't draw *your* conclusions that he's being argumentative."

You've lied twice in one sentence.  1. I haven't demanded that he draw my conclusions.  2. I have no problem with him being "argumentative." 
I've simply asked that he not lie about what I said, or make hateful speculations about why I said what I said.

[D.W.]

What you are calling a lie, is the exact impression I get from your post as well Pete.  Given your attention whoring title and your direct challenge to Pyr, you are calling him out to defend his former position in light of info you (it would seem) are convinced discredits him, personally. 

There are tons of ways you could have brought up this topic but look what you choose.  It's not AI or me who are being unfair in giving you the predictable reaction to your choice.

P.S.  Note neither AI nor I disagreed with your point (yet).  In so far that we can make it out behind your "pistols at high noon" challenge to Pyr.

[Pete at Home]

You say you "get the impression" that x.  You are entitled to your impressions.  Al says right out that I am saying x and doing y, when that flatly contradicts the words on records.  So I call lie on Al, but have no problem with what you said. 

I have no interest in discussing my emotions. It's simply a challenge.  Anyone who cares about black lives, please address the issues and solutions here.  If you think I've framed it badly, then start another thread and discuss them there.  But if you see "black lives matter" as just another cynical whorish program to silence one's opponents and maintain the status quo (Dynastic control of America's government) then do like Al did, ignore the issues and continue the battle of the vanities.

Again: cameras on cops seem to have the greatest success in exposing police brutality, from Rodney King in the 1990s, to this latest incident in Chicago.  Marissa Johnson and Pyr mock the movement to put cams on cops.  So I ask, what better measure do you suggest?

Every camera on a cop will accomplish more than ten protesters screaming that Black Lives matter.  Martin Luther King's protests mattered because he had an agenda that wasn't just about the protest.  Modern idiots sometimes say that he didn't succeed just because his personal approval rating was 40%.  Newsflash: MLK didn't march to promote his personal approval rating.  He got his message through.  The voting rights bill passed.  And while many feared and disliked him personally, they knew what his message was, and at the end of the day, most supported his bill.

[scifibum]

Pete, take a few steps back.  You've poured more invective in these pages about Johnson and Pyrtolin in the last couple of days than makes any sense.  What are you getting out of it?  You're annoying everyone and it's not productive.

[Pyrtolin]

Good for them. Bandaids have a purpose and are important stopgaps while working on the deeper solution. Remember the problem isn't "We don't get to see what the police are doing" though that's one thing tha can help solve it. The problem is taht the police are abusing power and being too liberal in their application of violence and deadly force, particularly against minorities. We wouldn't need cameras if they weren't doing that in the first place.

You'll note it wasn't the cameras that solved the problem here, it was activism that got the footage release and then created consequences based on the content. They contributed the solution, but if peopel had said "There are cameras, out work here is done" and then pretended like there was nothing more tha needed to be done, we wouldn't have seen any real results here.

Others have already pointed out anything else I could have said here. If you actually have a point or want to ask something coherent, please feel free to do so.

[D.W.]

You'll note it wasn't the cameras that solved the problem here, it was activism that got the footage release and then created consequences based on the content.

I get the, "That's not the end of it, or enough" sentiment, but...   You seriously don't think the cameras solved it?  If there was no footage this sounds like they would have tried (even more) desperately to sweep it under the rug.

Protest for protests sake is just stupid.  You can't just retcon ends justify the means even if we had no clue what the ends was when we started. 

There is an impression of silencing people when they dare to ask "Ya, but what do you want?"  It may be the listener's fault as much as the speaker, but it should be addressed.

[Pyrtolin]

You'll note it wasn't the cameras that solved the problem here, it was activism that got the footage release and then created consequences based on the content.

I get the, "That's not the end of it, or enough" sentiment, but...   You seriously don't think the cameras solved it?  If there was no footage this sounds like they would have tried (even more) desperately to sweep it under the rug.

No, it was going under the rug even with the cameras. It was the activist push to get the footage released and then force consequences for the coverup that ultimately solved it. The cameras were a tool, but suggesting that they solved it is like saying a hammer built a house, not the carpenter that used it.

They were important and essential to the process, but they're not a solution unto themselves. And people who care about the issue have to be clear taht they're not going to just sit down and shut up because the problem is "solved" now that there are cameras. They have to keep pushing to fix the problem, using the cameras as one additional tool to get them closer to the real solution.

Trying to say that my agreement that the cameras aren't enough in response to the original incident in question here amounts to saying that the cameras aren't useful at all is absurd and completely ignores my position in favor of asserting a strawman narrative that Pete's hacking away at here.

[Mynnion]

Maybe I am stupid but I don't see Pyr condemning the use of body cams so much as attacking the underlying system that promotes their need.  The fact that it took the actual release after a year of the tapes is a good indication that there is some validity to his argument.

The funny thing is about this is that I don't actually see any real disagreement about the need for change only in the best way to address that change.  Why do we consider body cams without addressing the underlying issues?  Why do we ignore the potential benefits of body cams as both a preventative agent and an agent of accountability?  These approaches are not mutually exclusive and both are important.

It has become obvious that many police depts. have underlying issues in how they deal with race and the mentally ill.  Training and accountability are required to address the underlying issues that allow and in some cases promote these issues.  Body cams can be used in some cases to assist in both training and accountability.

[Pete at Home]

You'll note it wasn't the cameras that solved the problem here, it was activism that got the footage release and then created consequences based on the content.

I get the, "That's not the end of it, or enough" sentiment, but...   You seriously don't think the cameras solved it?  If there was no footage this sounds like they would have tried (even more) desperately to sweep it under the rug.

It's not just a sentiment.  I had clients who cops brutalized and tortured and I worked my ass off to get them heard and got nothing for them.  Jailed, deported. Couldnt even get one of them out to see his daughter before she died of cancer.

In another case, i helped get a Lebanese pimp off for time served --because there was a recording.  In another case, i got an incredible offer that could have resulted in dropped chargess, for a Mexican mule who put three pounds of mmeth in a child's doll, in the child's lap, and drove it across three states. You dont need to tell me that it takes work even with the recording.  I KNOW THAT. But i resent loud couch potatoes like Marissa, insulting the efforts of those who work to save the people that she pretends to care about.

[Pete at Home]

"Why do we consider body cams without addressing the underlying issues?  "

Why do you throw around terms like "the underlying issues" without articulating any of them?  Why does Pyr do so for pages and say dismissive "bandaid" crap, and have a hissy fit when I excoriate Marissa Johnson (who Pyr claims brought "the issues" to light for the first time) without making any *censored*ing effort to actually discuss them, despite my asking repeatedly?  Hell, I started a thread just to ask him to stop waffling and put his cards on the table, and he's still waffling.

If the problem with body cams is that it keeps us from addressing the underlying issues, then why the *censored* isn't he addressing the underlying issues?  Why does Marisa Johnson hijack discussions and shut down city forums bitching about the history of Seattle, and preventing what is, AFAIK, the ONLY viable remedy on the table?

Since Pur has completely pussied out, I extend the invitation to ANYONE, to suggest some measure that society could take to combat police brutality, that would not be enhanced or otherwise supplemented by putting body cams on cops.


"The funny thing is about this is that I don't actually see any real disagreement about the need for change only in the best way to address that change. "

For over a dozen exchanged posts, Pyr has systematically dodged and evaded my request for what he things is the best way to address change.  So I don't think he's earned the analysis of "real disagreement."  He hasn't offered any proposal, and he even said my question of what he would propose is "irrelevant" to the cause of Black Lives Matters.  It's a *censored*ing postmodern movement where the mourners bury Mr. "I'm not dead yet."

[Pyrtolin]

Which is to say, since I actually answered honestly and didn't play to your strawman and gross misrepresentations of what I said, you're going to keep slinging insults at me instead of actually having acknowledge, never mind discuss any point of view other than the one that you demand that everyone accepts.

Why don't you actually respond to what I said, instead of making things up that I didn't say, then attacking me for not conforming to your false narrative?

[Gary238]

I think body cameras are probably necessary, but definitely not sufficient to solve the problems we have with police conduct and public trust.
We have departments and the communities they patrol that have given up on one another. We grant the police legal authority to exercise violence against the population (and necessarily so), and there have been abuses of that authority. Some of those abuses have become systemic and institutionalized in entire jurisdictions.
We also have a popular narrative around these abuses that makes it risky for a good cop to exercise force when it is required. Responding to a legitimate threat with deadly force comes with the risk of being demonized in the press and community.
Video records can serve to justify legitimate police violence, and to condemn abuses of police power. Just doing the recording isn't enough... we need to actively use the records to accomplish both of those ends.
I don't see any way out of this mess _without_ body cameras. They need to come along with reasonable access to the footage for oversight, and with a hearts and minds campaign on the part of the department.
I'd love to hear more about how we solve the problems, and less about who is or isn't playing nice.

[Pete at Home]

Which is to say, since I actually answered honestly and didn't play to your strawman and gross misrepresentations of what I said, you're going to keep slinging insults at me instead of actually having acknowledge, never mind discuss any point of view other than the one that you demand that everyone accepts.

Why don't you actually respond to what I said, instead of making things up that I didn't say, then attacking me for not conforming to your false narrative?

See"  pyr still evades my question, and refuses to identify Marissa Johnson's "message". He also refuses to propose any change in the law to reduce unnecessary police violence against black americans and/or others.

Pyr now accuses me of spinning a "false narrative."  does Pyr deny that a number of innocent and harmless black americans are getting killed by police?  why does Pyr refuse to discuss this issue? 

It seems thaat black lives do not matter to Pyr since he's jacked two threads to do nothing but fawn over Marissa Johnson, and to bash my disrespect for her.

[DJQuag]

Pete, I'm going to echo what others have said here.  You're getting really negative and crude in what you've been posting lately. I can appreciate a clever comeback or riposte, but crude is crude.

You might want to take a step back from this topic in general and Pyrtolin in general, for your own good.  You're getting angrily and a bit weirdly obsessive about both.

[Pyrtolin]

Her message was that Sanders' campaign (and the Democratic primary in general) was neglecting minorities, and that he was going to be in a lot of trouble if he didn't change that. And he did change that in response, just as Clinton did.

He also refuses to propose any change in the law to reduce unnecessary police violence against black americans and/or others.

In this conversation, absolutely. I'm talking about this thing, not that thing, so will not take the bait on your attempts to derail the conversation. We can talk about things I'd like to see in other threads if you'd like. This one is, near as I can tell, about body cams, BLM and their relative place in helping solve the issue of police violence. Anything outside of that is a different discussion. Stay on topic.

Pyr now accuses me of spinning a "false narrative."  does Pyr deny that a number of innocent and harmless black americans are getting killed by police?  why does Pyr refuse to discuss this issue? 

Ooh. More false narrative. Hand waving away from pointing out the way your misrepresentations about my position create a false narrative by, amazingly enough misrepresenting what I've said and creating more false narrative about me.

he's jacked two threads to do nothing but fawn over Marissa Johnson, and to bash my disrespect for her.

And again, false narrative. I refuse to participate in your beratement of her. I don't ask that you respect her- you can feel however you want- I ask that you don't resort to vacuous, misogynistic name calling as an alternative to simply expressing your disagreement. I know you're fully capable of expressing your opinions as opinions and as meaningful arguments; the name calling is completely useless and uncalled for in any context or situation.

[Pete at Home]

In this conversation, absolutely. I'm talking about this thing, not that thing, so will not take the bait on your attempts to derail the conversation"

Since i specifically started this thread to ask you for proposed solutions, your ludicrous and arrogant attemt to redefine "the topic" and then temm me that i am "off topic" is typical of that Red Guard thug that you fawn over.

[AI Wessex]

Like Trump you just keep rolling along

[Pyrtolin]

In this conversation, absolutely. I'm talking about this thing, not that thing, so will not take the bait on your attempts to derail the conversation"

Since i specifically started this thread to ask you for proposed solutions, your ludicrous and arrogant attemt to redefine "the topic" and then temm me that i am "off topic" is typical of that Red Guard thug that you fawn over.

Usually when one specifically starts a thread to talk about something, one talks about that thing and not everything but that thing in the initial post. Your first post talked about body cams, Johnson, and BLM- somewhat incoherently, to be sure, but that's all that was in the thesis. Not one word about additional things that need to be done. So, do try again if you actually want to have a different conversation than the one you started, but don't try to dodge accountability for what you did say by changing the subject as it becomes clear that I'm not going to play the role you tried to cast for me\\ based on misrepresentations of what I  said.

[Pete at Home]

The. Question adressed in this thread is, since you downplay body cams, what solution do you or Marissa Johnson advocate?

You have every right 'to refuse to answer the question, but please dont let fear of looking like a pussy lead you into dishonest tactics like claiming that my question is "off topic." my question is the topic.

[Pyrtolin]

The. Question adressed in this thread is, since you downplay body cams, what solution do you or Marissa Johnson advocate?

Since I do not downplay body cams, but just honestly see them as a tool toward fixing problems, not a solution unto themselves, the pretense of your question is false. Try again without misrepresenting me.

[Pyrtolin]

Thinking about it, i will accept the relative position of "downplay" if you honestly tell me that you thing cameras are a solution. That, once implemented, the problem is solved and no further action or intervention will be needed. If you don't think that they're the magic bullet that will make the problem go away, then you've got no room to suggest that I'm downplaying them because I point out that they're not going to fix things by themselves.

[Pete at Home]

The. Question adressed in this thread is, since you downplay body cams, what solution do you or Marissa Johnson advocate?

Since I do not downplay body cams, but just honestly see them as a tool toward fixing problems, not a solution unto themselves,

I wasnt responding to how you see things but to what you said.  What you say now is pretty much what I said on the other thread.  You hever until now acknowleged the value of body cams towards making people aware of the problem. 

If you want me to respond to your actual views, then try harder to aericulate your actual views.  My responses to what you actually said may have been "crude" and "distasteful" but without what i said, you never would have clarified (P

[Pyrtolin]

I wasnt responding to how you see things but to what you said.  What you say now is pretty much what I said on the other thread.  You hever until now acknowleged the value of body cams towards making people aware of the problem. 

I very much did. I pointed out taht they were a bandaid, not a solution. They help control the issue, but hey don't solve it.

If you want me to respond to your actual views, then try harder to aericulate your actual views.  My responses to what you actually said may have been "crude" and "distasteful" but without what i said, you never would have clarified (P

No, if you had politely asked for clarification we would have gotten here much more quickly. The was much longer and drawn out because you chose instead to make things up and hurl invective instead of simply saying you didn't quite get what I meant, blaming me for your confusion instead of taking responsibility for resolving it.

[OrneryMod]

Pete: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[Pete at Home]

Calling something a "bandaid, not a solution" is downplaying its utility.

It's also something quite different that what you said later here on this thread about being a "tool toward fixing problems"

Gaslighting your own statements is annoying but tolerable .  I take it that your tool summary is what you nelieve while the bamdaid nonsense is the party line.

Note that you havent answerd my basic thread question.  if cams are "just a bandaid, " "not a solution" or whatever, what systemic changes do you advocate?

I and others who have worked in the system to help brutalized people, seek cams because photographic evidence overcomes basic authority worship.  Judges and juries tend to believe cops when there is not a recording , and cops know they can get away with most anything if the suspect is poor. 

I sure as hell dont think that cams on their own solve the whole problem, but i cannot think of any significant systemic change that does not involve cams or other recording. 


' No, if you had politely asked for clarification we would have gotten here much more quickly'

I had no way of knowing that you thought that saying cams were "a bandais" and "not a solution" was "not dismissive." so i could not have asked you to "clarify" that which clearly meant sometthing to me. It still looks to me like you are contradicting yourself.  In any event, my irritation with you was not over your position or unwillingness to answer my questions, but rather the sinister motive inferences you made to deflect my question.  Not that my excesses were justified.  apologies to DW and djquag for putting you through that. 

[Pyrtolin]

I'll address that question next time I have time to post, but I'll not that you post 4 times on this threat attacking me for not bowing down to the hate you've been spewing and not saying what you want time to say before you actually asked that question. Something that you'd know the answer to pretty well by this point if you'd have been paying attention to what I've been saying rather than trying to make up reasons to vilify me for not being willing to participate in and calling you out on your demonization and hateful attacks.

EVen here where you seem to be agreeing that camera aren't a solution, just a tool that can help if used properly, you still try to attack me for saying that in the process of pointing that out and even after we have evidence that that's exactly what the Chicago issue demonstrated. Had people called the problem solved by cameras in Chicago, nothing would have improved and the footage would never have seen the light of day. It's only because activists refused to let the polce rest on their laurels and held them to account that they got used properly.

So if you want my baseline answer, it's "Constant activism until there is no problem left". I don't have the fix for every single problem, but the solution- the thing that will ultimately fix all of the problems is constant, impossible to ignore, community pressure to fix them. Activism. Constant pressure to implement the things that we do know will work. Constant pressure to find solutions to the things that we haven't quite untangled yet. All the improvements in the world won't matter unless we, as a community, constantly force action toward making them and don't rest until the issue is solved.

Calling anything short of something that fixes _everything_, _once and for all_, a solution is just wordplay that tries to block progress by pretending that there's nothing left to fix.

Cameras are a useful tool, but they do not come close to fixing everything. Their utility only comes with pressure to use them properly. They're a tool that's useful for a specific task when applied properly, just like a bandaid, not a solution which is the thing that completely fixes everything.

If you can point to anything that's done more to fix problems than active, overwhelming community pressure to fix those problems (whose implementation and proper use wasn't driven in some whay by that pressure), feel free to point it out, but I've not yet seen anything that comes close.

[Pete at Home]

"n here where you seem to be agreeing that camera aren't a solution, "

:Rolleyes:

They are a solution to the problem of police getting away with murder.  If you dont see cams as a "solution", and you'd rather spend time try ing to controling the discussion that actually discussing what you DO consider a solution, then you hardly need me to demonize you.

You've turned this into a Monte Python skit, and i dont want to play Clesse to your Palin anymore.

You seem to have answered the shell "if" question.  No answer to solutions, because you dont seem to care. 

[Pyrtolin]

They are a solution to the problem of police getting away with murder.

How? Does the camera taze them when they try to step out of line? If no one ever sees the video, how does it prevent them from doing anything? The cameras given an extra avenue for activists to pursue to solve the problem, but they do not solve the problem. Something is only a solution if there is no problem left after it is applied. It's a tool if it creates an additional avenue that allows for a solution.

No answer to solutions, because you dont seem to care.

Keep making things up and I'll continue to refuse to go out of my way to give you more material to make things up about.

[Fenring]

They are a solution to the problem of police getting away with murder.

How? Does the camera taze them when they try to step out of line? If no one ever sees the video, how does it prevent them from doing anything? The cameras given an extra avenue for activists to pursue to solve the problem, but they do not solve the problem.

You're either hopelessly mired in your own preconceived concept of what activism is, or you're just living in the 1980's in your head, because what you just described is absolutely not required for the purposes of oversight. Once you have cameras in place recording police activity the general public is going to be full of people who watch them regularly. These are not activists but rather just concerned citizens. And I think this is where your argument goes off the rails, because unless you think anyone at all concerned about the public good is an 'activist' then activists as you call them are not needed once oversight is in place. Maybe activism helped get the idea of body cams popular, but once the cams are there the job is done. When the public witnesses something questionable or even outrageous in such a video there is typically a local or even national firestorm when the video goes viral and the police department begins receiving countless complaints and negative publicity. This is inevitable once oversight is transparent in the internet age. Now, you might argue that cameras aren't the only kind of oversight that can be helpful in police matters, and I would argue, for instance, that training methods need to be overseen as well. However listing other potential areas that are not transparent enough yet doesn't have anything to do with claiming that activists are somehow needed to make camera footage useful. That just isn't true.

[Seriati]

Calling anything short of something that fixes _everything_, _once and for all_, a solution is just wordplay that tries to block progress by pretending that there's nothing left to fix.

This may be the most nonsensical thing you've ever said.  Nothing "fixes everything," and partial solutions with the potential to fix a majority of a problem are very good things, not just word play and certainly not something to be avoided because they "block progress by pretending that there's nothing left to fix."

But in this case, you're actually claiming that we shouldn't treat a disease in a forest because we don't also have a solution for 15 other diseases and a multiple parasite infections.  Camera's are a solution to a specific problem.  The problem of officers taking liberties because they are unobserved and know that their word will be given deference over their victims.  Cameras are pretty much the only solution for that problem.

[DJQuag]

Civilian oversight of camera footage is critical. I don't trust cops to oversee cops.

[AI Wessex]

Civilian oversight of camera footage is critical. I don't trust cops to oversee cops.

That holds for any X overseeing X.  Even the Catholic (or any other) Church shouldn't be trusted.

[Pyrtolin]

Once you have cameras in place recording police activity the general public is going to be full of people who watch them regularly.

You mean like happened in Chicago?

Wait, no. Activists has to come out and force the tapes to be released and reviewed, then press the matter until action was taken.

When we get to the point where people are reviewing them regularly then we will absolutely have a wider base to push for accountability, but if no one pushes, nothing happens, and it's going to take pushing to get the system for everything to be reviewed to be build. The police department isn't going to do it without pressure.

Without pressure, they put the cameras on toss the videos into a box where no one ever sees them, and nothing happens. That's why there are people out there pushing to make sure that we don't follow the standard routing of implementing a small improvement, declaring the issue fixed, then never really using the tools and eventually putting them on a shelf somewhere because not enough people are paying attention anymore.