Replicas

20 Jul 19
WPRI.com
WARWICK, R.I. (WPRI) — A parade was held in Warwick Saturday afternoon to honor the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11’s Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin’s historic first steps on the moon. Armstrong was first one out. “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” he said to the roughly 600 million people watching on Earth. “I was 7 years old and I remember it was big. I mean it was huge!” said Warwick resident Muriel Morrison. Warwick’s Conimicut Village Association has been planning the celebration for months. Organizers believe it was one of the only parades in the nation to commemorate the anniversary. “It was exciting it was really really exciting, and it’s exciting today!” said Sherwood “Woody” Spring of Glocester. “We’re watching the television just laying on the living room floor talking about life and all of a sudden they’re landing on the moon. They’re Landing On The Moon! Oh my! And that kind of rejuvenated my interest in being an astronaut.” Spring, a former astronaut, served as the Grand Marshal of the parade that included a replica rocket and command center. The oppressive heat and humidity didn’t scare away the hundreds spectators, who were armed with water bottles, umbrellas and fans. Lonnie Barham of the Conimicut Village Association said canceling was always an option. “But I mean a year and a half of planning and so many people planning on coming, we did put a bunch of water stations up, and Conimicut has a lot of shade trees.” “This is the only one of its kind in the country celebrating an accomplishment that John Kennedy started,” said Joseph Rodrigues of Warwick. The festivities brought back memories and a renewed passion for space travel. Many hoping it will inspire a younger generation to look toward the stars. “Going along with the Mars program that they’ve started now, I’d like to see that continue and maybe we can be the first ones there,” said Warwick resident Ron Morrison. Tonight’s full WaterFire lighting is also in honor of the moon landing’s 50th anniversary sponsored by the NASA Rhode Island Space Grant Consortium.
20 Jul 19
Musical in Life

What is the musical “Jekyll and Hyde”? The musical, “Jekyll & Hyde” is based on the novel by British novelist Robert Louis Stevenson, “The Strange Case of Dr. Zekyll and Mr. Hyde,” and is a classic of the century, which became a sensation when it was published in 1886, as well as a drama, a […]

20 Jul 19
Pasadena Star News
Body camera footage is playing a critical role in shedding light on what happened during the July 5 officer-involved shooting in Fullerton that resulted in the death of 17-year-old Hannah Williams, due to a new California law that I authored, AB748, which took effect July 1. Modeled after the policy at the Los Angeles Police Department, AB748 requires law enforcement to release body camera footage within 45 days of a critical incident, which is defined as use of force that causes death or great bodily harm. I commend the Fullerton Police Department for complying with the new law, releasing the video just a week after the tragic event. It appears to show Cpl. Scott Flynn encountering Williams, who was holding what turned out to be a replica firearm and pointing it at the officer. Without knowing the gun was a fake, Flynn fired his weapon. While the investigation continues into whether or not the officer’s actions were lawful, it’s apparent police behavior is now more difficult to keep secret, and that AB748 has ushered in a new era of police transparency and accountability. No longer can law enforcement agencies keep body camera footage from the public. Although 30-day delays are permitted with justification under my bill, no longer can police cite “pending investigation” as a reason to endlessly withhold video records. With more and more agencies deploying body-worn cameras, AB748 provides consistency and clear standards so all Californians have the same access to their law enforcement’s body camera footage. Prior to July 1, there was a patchwork of policies that didn’t always result in the public being able to see these recordings. When details of a shooting are unknown, withholding the video undermines the public’s confidence in their law enforcement. I believe we need transparency and public access to these recordings to help rebuild trust between police and the communities they serve. In addition, taxpayers paid for these body cameras; therefore, they should be able to see the contents. As a follow up to AB748, I am also working on AB1215 this year to prohibit law-enforcement agencies from using facial recognition software in those body cameras. [related_articles location=”left” show_article_date=”false” article_type=”automatic-primary-section”]If this technology is allowed, body cameras essentially become roving 24-hour surveillance on citizens without their consent. To make matters worse, jurisdictions using the technology, such as the city of Detroit, for example, found it harbors racial biases against people of color. Likewise, when the American Civil Liberties Union put facial recognition to the test, it misidentified 28 members of Congress as people in a mugshot database. There’s no way facial recognition is ready for prime time. Let’s just stick to body cameras’ original purpose: to provide transparency and record active police encounters with community members. Then allow the public to review any footage if critical incidents occur so they can determine whether all policies and procedures were followed. This is what it means to live in an open society where our government is subject to scrutiny. Phil Ting represents the 19th Assembly District, which includes the Westside of San Francisco and parts of northern San Mateo County.
20 Jul 19
Press Telegram
Body camera footage is playing a critical role in shedding light on what happened during the July 5 officer-involved shooting in Fullerton that resulted in the death of 17-year-old Hannah Williams, due to a new California law that I authored, AB748, which took effect July 1. Modeled after the policy at the Los Angeles Police Department, AB748 requires law enforcement to release body camera footage within 45 days of a critical incident, which is defined as use of force that causes death or great bodily harm. I commend the Fullerton Police Department for complying with the new law, releasing the video just a week after the tragic event. It appears to show Cpl. Scott Flynn encountering Williams, who was holding what turned out to be a replica firearm and pointing it at the officer. Without knowing the gun was a fake, Flynn fired his weapon. While the investigation continues into whether or not the officer’s actions were lawful, it’s apparent police behavior is now more difficult to keep secret, and that AB748 has ushered in a new era of police transparency and accountability. No longer can law enforcement agencies keep body camera footage from the public. Although 30-day delays are permitted with justification under my bill, no longer can police cite “pending investigation” as a reason to endlessly withhold video records. With more and more agencies deploying body-worn cameras, AB748 provides consistency and clear standards so all Californians have the same access to their law enforcement’s body camera footage. Prior to July 1, there was a patchwork of policies that didn’t always result in the public being able to see these recordings. When details of a shooting are unknown, withholding the video undermines the public’s confidence in their law enforcement. I believe we need transparency and public access to these recordings to help rebuild trust between police and the communities they serve. In addition, taxpayers paid for these body cameras; therefore, they should be able to see the contents. As a follow up to AB748, I am also working on AB1215 this year to prohibit law-enforcement agencies from using facial recognition software in those body cameras. [related_articles location=”left” show_article_date=”false” article_type=”automatic-primary-section”]If this technology is allowed, body cameras essentially become roving 24-hour surveillance on citizens without their consent. To make matters worse, jurisdictions using the technology, such as the city of Detroit, for example, found it harbors racial biases against people of color. Likewise, when the American Civil Liberties Union put facial recognition to the test, it misidentified 28 members of Congress as people in a mugshot database. There’s no way facial recognition is ready for prime time. Let’s just stick to body cameras’ original purpose: to provide transparency and record active police encounters with community members. Then allow the public to review any footage if critical incidents occur so they can determine whether all policies and procedures were followed. This is what it means to live in an open society where our government is subject to scrutiny. Phil Ting represents the 19th Assembly District, which includes the Westside of San Francisco and parts of northern San Mateo County.
20 Jul 19
Orange County Register
Body camera footage is playing a critical role in shedding light on what happened during the July 5 officer-involved shooting in Fullerton that resulted in the death of 17-year-old Hannah Williams, due to a new California law that I authored, AB748, which took effect July 1. Modeled after the policy at the Los Angeles Police Department, AB748 requires law enforcement to release body camera footage within 45 days of a critical incident, which is defined as use of force that causes death or great bodily harm. I commend the Fullerton Police Department for complying with the new law, releasing the video just a week after the tragic event. It appears to show Cpl. Scott Flynn encountering Williams, who was holding what turned out to be a replica firearm and pointing it at the officer. Without knowing the gun was a fake, Flynn fired his weapon. While the investigation continues into whether or not the officer’s actions were lawful, it’s apparent police behavior is now more difficult to keep secret, and that AB748 has ushered in a new era of police transparency and accountability. No longer can law enforcement agencies keep body camera footage from the public. Although 30-day delays are permitted with justification under my bill, no longer can police cite “pending investigation” as a reason to endlessly withhold video records. With more and more agencies deploying body-worn cameras, AB748 provides consistency and clear standards so all Californians have the same access to their law enforcement’s body camera footage. Prior to July 1, there was a patchwork of policies that didn’t always result in the public being able to see these recordings. When details of a shooting are unknown, withholding the video undermines the public’s confidence in their law enforcement. I believe we need transparency and public access to these recordings to help rebuild trust between police and the communities they serve. In addition, taxpayers paid for these body cameras; therefore, they should be able to see the contents. As a follow up to AB748, I am also working on AB1215 this year to prohibit law-enforcement agencies from using facial recognition software in those body cameras. [related_articles location=”left” show_article_date=”false” article_type=”automatic-primary-section”]If this technology is allowed, body cameras essentially become roving 24-hour surveillance on citizens without their consent. To make matters worse, jurisdictions using the technology, such as the city of Detroit, for example, found it harbors racial biases against people of color. Likewise, when the American Civil Liberties Union put facial recognition to the test, it misidentified 28 members of Congress as people in a mugshot database. There’s no way facial recognition is ready for prime time. Let’s just stick to body cameras’ original purpose: to provide transparency and record active police encounters with community members. Then allow the public to review any footage if critical incidents occur so they can determine whether all policies and procedures were followed. This is what it means to live in an open society where our government is subject to scrutiny. Phil Ting represents the 19th Assembly District, which includes the Westside of San Francisco and parts of northern San Mateo County.
20 Jul 19
Whittier Daily News
Body camera footage is playing a critical role in shedding light on what happened during the July 5 officer-involved shooting in Fullerton that resulted in the death of 17-year-old Hannah Williams, due to a new California law that I authored, AB748, which took effect July 1. Modeled after the policy at the Los Angeles Police Department, AB748 requires law enforcement to release body camera footage within 45 days of a critical incident, which is defined as use of force that causes death or great bodily harm. I commend the Fullerton Police Department for complying with the new law, releasing the video just a week after the tragic event. It appears to show Cpl. Scott Flynn encountering Williams, who was holding what turned out to be a replica firearm and pointing it at the officer. Without knowing the gun was a fake, Flynn fired his weapon. While the investigation continues into whether or not the officer’s actions were lawful, it’s apparent police behavior is now more difficult to keep secret, and that AB748 has ushered in a new era of police transparency and accountability. No longer can law enforcement agencies keep body camera footage from the public. Although 30-day delays are permitted with justification under my bill, no longer can police cite “pending investigation” as a reason to endlessly withhold video records. With more and more agencies deploying body-worn cameras, AB748 provides consistency and clear standards so all Californians have the same access to their law enforcement’s body camera footage. Prior to July 1, there was a patchwork of policies that didn’t always result in the public being able to see these recordings. When details of a shooting are unknown, withholding the video undermines the public’s confidence in their law enforcement. I believe we need transparency and public access to these recordings to help rebuild trust between police and the communities they serve. In addition, taxpayers paid for these body cameras; therefore, they should be able to see the contents. As a follow up to AB748, I am also working on AB1215 this year to prohibit law-enforcement agencies from using facial recognition software in those body cameras. [related_articles location=”left” show_article_date=”false” article_type=”automatic-primary-section”]If this technology is allowed, body cameras essentially become roving 24-hour surveillance on citizens without their consent. To make matters worse, jurisdictions using the technology, such as the city of Detroit, for example, found it harbors racial biases against people of color. Likewise, when the American Civil Liberties Union put facial recognition to the test, it misidentified 28 members of Congress as people in a mugshot database. There’s no way facial recognition is ready for prime time. Let’s just stick to body cameras’ original purpose: to provide transparency and record active police encounters with community members. Then allow the public to review any footage if critical incidents occur so they can determine whether all policies and procedures were followed. This is what it means to live in an open society where our government is subject to scrutiny. Phil Ting represents the 19th Assembly District, which includes the Westside of San Francisco and parts of northern San Mateo County.
20 Jul 19
San Gabriel Valley Tribune
Body camera footage is playing a critical role in shedding light on what happened during the July 5 officer-involved shooting in Fullerton that resulted in the death of 17-year-old Hannah Williams, due to a new California law that I authored, AB748, which took effect July 1. Modeled after the policy at the Los Angeles Police Department, AB748 requires law enforcement to release body camera footage within 45 days of a critical incident, which is defined as use of force that causes death or great bodily harm. I commend the Fullerton Police Department for complying with the new law, releasing the video just a week after the tragic event. It appears to show Cpl. Scott Flynn encountering Williams, who was holding what turned out to be a replica firearm and pointing it at the officer. Without knowing the gun was a fake, Flynn fired his weapon. While the investigation continues into whether or not the officer’s actions were lawful, it’s apparent police behavior is now more difficult to keep secret, and that AB748 has ushered in a new era of police transparency and accountability. No longer can law enforcement agencies keep body camera footage from the public. Although 30-day delays are permitted with justification under my bill, no longer can police cite “pending investigation” as a reason to endlessly withhold video records. With more and more agencies deploying body-worn cameras, AB748 provides consistency and clear standards so all Californians have the same access to their law enforcement’s body camera footage. Prior to July 1, there was a patchwork of policies that didn’t always result in the public being able to see these recordings. When details of a shooting are unknown, withholding the video undermines the public’s confidence in their law enforcement. I believe we need transparency and public access to these recordings to help rebuild trust between police and the communities they serve. In addition, taxpayers paid for these body cameras; therefore, they should be able to see the contents. As a follow up to AB748, I am also working on AB1215 this year to prohibit law-enforcement agencies from using facial recognition software in those body cameras. [related_articles location=”left” show_article_date=”false” article_type=”automatic-primary-section”]If this technology is allowed, body cameras essentially become roving 24-hour surveillance on citizens without their consent. To make matters worse, jurisdictions using the technology, such as the city of Detroit, for example, found it harbors racial biases against people of color. Likewise, when the American Civil Liberties Union put facial recognition to the test, it misidentified 28 members of Congress as people in a mugshot database. There’s no way facial recognition is ready for prime time. Let’s just stick to body cameras’ original purpose: to provide transparency and record active police encounters with community members. Then allow the public to review any footage if critical incidents occur so they can determine whether all policies and procedures were followed. This is what it means to live in an open society where our government is subject to scrutiny. Phil Ting represents the 19th Assembly District, which includes the Westside of San Francisco and parts of northern San Mateo County.
20 Jul 19
Redlands Daily Facts
Body camera footage is playing a critical role in shedding light on what happened during the July 5 officer-involved shooting in Fullerton that resulted in the death of 17-year-old Hannah Williams, due to a new California law that I authored, AB748, which took effect July 1. Modeled after the policy at the Los Angeles Police Department, AB748 requires law enforcement to release body camera footage within 45 days of a critical incident, which is defined as use of force that causes death or great bodily harm. I commend the Fullerton Police Department for complying with the new law, releasing the video just a week after the tragic event. It appears to show Cpl. Scott Flynn encountering Williams, who was holding what turned out to be a replica firearm and pointing it at the officer. Without knowing the gun was a fake, Flynn fired his weapon. While the investigation continues into whether or not the officer’s actions were lawful, it’s apparent police behavior is now more difficult to keep secret, and that AB748 has ushered in a new era of police transparency and accountability. No longer can law enforcement agencies keep body camera footage from the public. Although 30-day delays are permitted with justification under my bill, no longer can police cite “pending investigation” as a reason to endlessly withhold video records. With more and more agencies deploying body-worn cameras, AB748 provides consistency and clear standards so all Californians have the same access to their law enforcement’s body camera footage. Prior to July 1, there was a patchwork of policies that didn’t always result in the public being able to see these recordings. When details of a shooting are unknown, withholding the video undermines the public’s confidence in their law enforcement. I believe we need transparency and public access to these recordings to help rebuild trust between police and the communities they serve. In addition, taxpayers paid for these body cameras; therefore, they should be able to see the contents. As a follow up to AB748, I am also working on AB1215 this year to prohibit law-enforcement agencies from using facial recognition software in those body cameras. [related_articles location=”left” show_article_date=”false” article_type=”automatic-primary-section”]If this technology is allowed, body cameras essentially become roving 24-hour surveillance on citizens without their consent. To make matters worse, jurisdictions using the technology, such as the city of Detroit, for example, found it harbors racial biases against people of color. Likewise, when the American Civil Liberties Union put facial recognition to the test, it misidentified 28 members of Congress as people in a mugshot database. There’s no way facial recognition is ready for prime time. Let’s just stick to body cameras’ original purpose: to provide transparency and record active police encounters with community members. Then allow the public to review any footage if critical incidents occur so they can determine whether all policies and procedures were followed. This is what it means to live in an open society where our government is subject to scrutiny. Phil Ting represents the 19th Assembly District, which includes the Westside of San Francisco and parts of northern San Mateo County.
20 Jul 19
Daily News
Body camera footage is playing a critical role in shedding light on what happened during the July 5 officer-involved shooting in Fullerton that resulted in the death of 17-year-old Hannah Williams, due to a new California law that I authored, AB748, which took effect July 1. Modeled after the policy at the Los Angeles Police Department, AB748 requires law enforcement to release body camera footage within 45 days of a critical incident, which is defined as use of force that causes death or great bodily harm. I commend the Fullerton Police Department for complying with the new law, releasing the video just a week after the tragic event. It appears to show Cpl. Scott Flynn encountering Williams, who was holding what turned out to be a replica firearm and pointing it at the officer. Without knowing the gun was a fake, Flynn fired his weapon. While the investigation continues into whether or not the officer’s actions were lawful, it’s apparent police behavior is now more difficult to keep secret, and that AB748 has ushered in a new era of police transparency and accountability. No longer can law enforcement agencies keep body camera footage from the public. Although 30-day delays are permitted with justification under my bill, no longer can police cite “pending investigation” as a reason to endlessly withhold video records. With more and more agencies deploying body-worn cameras, AB748 provides consistency and clear standards so all Californians have the same access to their law enforcement’s body camera footage. Prior to July 1, there was a patchwork of policies that didn’t always result in the public being able to see these recordings. When details of a shooting are unknown, withholding the video undermines the public’s confidence in their law enforcement. I believe we need transparency and public access to these recordings to help rebuild trust between police and the communities they serve. In addition, taxpayers paid for these body cameras; therefore, they should be able to see the contents. As a follow up to AB748, I am also working on AB1215 this year to prohibit law-enforcement agencies from using facial recognition software in those body cameras. [related_articles location=”left” show_article_date=”false” article_type=”automatic-primary-section”]If this technology is allowed, body cameras essentially become roving 24-hour surveillance on citizens without their consent. To make matters worse, jurisdictions using the technology, such as the city of Detroit, for example, found it harbors racial biases against people of color. Likewise, when the American Civil Liberties Union put facial recognition to the test, it misidentified 28 members of Congress as people in a mugshot database. There’s no way facial recognition is ready for prime time. Let’s just stick to body cameras’ original purpose: to provide transparency and record active police encounters with community members. Then allow the public to review any footage if critical incidents occur so they can determine whether all policies and procedures were followed. This is what it means to live in an open society where our government is subject to scrutiny. Phil Ting represents the 19th Assembly District, which includes the Westside of San Francisco and parts of northern San Mateo County.
20 Jul 19
Daily Breeze
Body camera footage is playing a critical role in shedding light on what happened during the July 5 officer-involved shooting in Fullerton that resulted in the death of 17-year-old Hannah Williams, due to a new California law that I authored, AB748, which took effect July 1. Modeled after the policy at the Los Angeles Police Department, AB748 requires law enforcement to release body camera footage within 45 days of a critical incident, which is defined as use of force that causes death or great bodily harm. I commend the Fullerton Police Department for complying with the new law, releasing the video just a week after the tragic event. It appears to show Cpl. Scott Flynn encountering Williams, who was holding what turned out to be a replica firearm and pointing it at the officer. Without knowing the gun was a fake, Flynn fired his weapon. While the investigation continues into whether or not the officer’s actions were lawful, it’s apparent police behavior is now more difficult to keep secret, and that AB748 has ushered in a new era of police transparency and accountability. No longer can law enforcement agencies keep body camera footage from the public. Although 30-day delays are permitted with justification under my bill, no longer can police cite “pending investigation” as a reason to endlessly withhold video records. With more and more agencies deploying body-worn cameras, AB748 provides consistency and clear standards so all Californians have the same access to their law enforcement’s body camera footage. Prior to July 1, there was a patchwork of policies that didn’t always result in the public being able to see these recordings. When details of a shooting are unknown, withholding the video undermines the public’s confidence in their law enforcement. I believe we need transparency and public access to these recordings to help rebuild trust between police and the communities they serve. In addition, taxpayers paid for these body cameras; therefore, they should be able to see the contents. As a follow up to AB748, I am also working on AB1215 this year to prohibit law-enforcement agencies from using facial recognition software in those body cameras. [related_articles location=”left” show_article_date=”false” article_type=”automatic-primary-section”]If this technology is allowed, body cameras essentially become roving 24-hour surveillance on citizens without their consent. To make matters worse, jurisdictions using the technology, such as the city of Detroit, for example, found it harbors racial biases against people of color. Likewise, when the American Civil Liberties Union put facial recognition to the test, it misidentified 28 members of Congress as people in a mugshot database. There’s no way facial recognition is ready for prime time. Let’s just stick to body cameras’ original purpose: to provide transparency and record active police encounters with community members. Then allow the public to review any footage if critical incidents occur so they can determine whether all policies and procedures were followed. This is what it means to live in an open society where our government is subject to scrutiny. Phil Ting represents the 19th Assembly District, which includes the Westside of San Francisco and parts of northern San Mateo County.
20 Jul 19
Daily Bulletin
Body camera footage is playing a critical role in shedding light on what happened during the July 5 officer-involved shooting in Fullerton that resulted in the death of 17-year-old Hannah Williams, due to a new California law that I authored, AB748, which took effect July 1. Modeled after the policy at the Los Angeles Police Department, AB748 requires law enforcement to release body camera footage within 45 days of a critical incident, which is defined as use of force that causes death or great bodily harm. I commend the Fullerton Police Department for complying with the new law, releasing the video just a week after the tragic event. It appears to show Cpl. Scott Flynn encountering Williams, who was holding what turned out to be a replica firearm and pointing it at the officer. Without knowing the gun was a fake, Flynn fired his weapon. While the investigation continues into whether or not the officer’s actions were lawful, it’s apparent police behavior is now more difficult to keep secret, and that AB748 has ushered in a new era of police transparency and accountability. No longer can law enforcement agencies keep body camera footage from the public. Although 30-day delays are permitted with justification under my bill, no longer can police cite “pending investigation” as a reason to endlessly withhold video records. With more and more agencies deploying body-worn cameras, AB748 provides consistency and clear standards so all Californians have the same access to their law enforcement’s body camera footage. Prior to July 1, there was a patchwork of policies that didn’t always result in the public being able to see these recordings. When details of a shooting are unknown, withholding the video undermines the public’s confidence in their law enforcement. I believe we need transparency and public access to these recordings to help rebuild trust between police and the communities they serve. In addition, taxpayers paid for these body cameras; therefore, they should be able to see the contents. As a follow up to AB748, I am also working on AB1215 this year to prohibit law-enforcement agencies from using facial recognition software in those body cameras. [related_articles location=”left” show_article_date=”false” article_type=”automatic-primary-section”]If this technology is allowed, body cameras essentially become roving 24-hour surveillance on citizens without their consent. To make matters worse, jurisdictions using the technology, such as the city of Detroit, for example, found it harbors racial biases against people of color. Likewise, when the American Civil Liberties Union put facial recognition to the test, it misidentified 28 members of Congress as people in a mugshot database. There’s no way facial recognition is ready for prime time. Let’s just stick to body cameras’ original purpose: to provide transparency and record active police encounters with community members. Then allow the public to review any footage if critical incidents occur so they can determine whether all policies and procedures were followed. This is what it means to live in an open society where our government is subject to scrutiny. Phil Ting represents the 19th Assembly District, which includes the Westside of San Francisco and parts of northern San Mateo County.
20 Jul 19
Press Enterprise
Body camera footage is playing a critical role in shedding light on what happened during the July 5 officer-involved shooting in Fullerton that resulted in the death of 17-year-old Hannah Williams, due to a new California law that I authored, AB748, which took effect July 1. Modeled after the policy at the Los Angeles Police Department, AB748 requires law enforcement to release body camera footage within 45 days of a critical incident, which is defined as use of force that causes death or great bodily harm. I commend the Fullerton Police Department for complying with the new law, releasing the video just a week after the tragic event. It appears to show Cpl. Scott Flynn encountering Williams, who was holding what turned out to be a replica firearm and pointing it at the officer. Without knowing the gun was a fake, Flynn fired his weapon. While the investigation continues into whether or not the officer’s actions were lawful, it’s apparent police behavior is now more difficult to keep secret, and that AB748 has ushered in a new era of police transparency and accountability. No longer can law enforcement agencies keep body camera footage from the public. Although 30-day delays are permitted with justification under my bill, no longer can police cite “pending investigation” as a reason to endlessly withhold video records. With more and more agencies deploying body-worn cameras, AB748 provides consistency and clear standards so all Californians have the same access to their law enforcement’s body camera footage. Prior to July 1, there was a patchwork of policies that didn’t always result in the public being able to see these recordings. When details of a shooting are unknown, withholding the video undermines the public’s confidence in their law enforcement. I believe we need transparency and public access to these recordings to help rebuild trust between police and the communities they serve. In addition, taxpayers paid for these body cameras; therefore, they should be able to see the contents. As a follow up to AB748, I am also working on AB1215 this year to prohibit law-enforcement agencies from using facial recognition software in those body cameras. [related_articles location=”left” show_article_date=”false” article_type=”automatic-primary-section”]If this technology is allowed, body cameras essentially become roving 24-hour surveillance on citizens without their consent. To make matters worse, jurisdictions using the technology, such as the city of Detroit, for example, found it harbors racial biases against people of color. Likewise, when the American Civil Liberties Union put facial recognition to the test, it misidentified 28 members of Congress as people in a mugshot database. There’s no way facial recognition is ready for prime time. Let’s just stick to body cameras’ original purpose: to provide transparency and record active police encounters with community members. Then allow the public to review any footage if critical incidents occur so they can determine whether all policies and procedures were followed. This is what it means to live in an open society where our government is subject to scrutiny. Phil Ting represents the 19th Assembly District, which includes the Westside of San Francisco and parts of northern San Mateo County.
20 Jul 19
CBS Los Angeles
LOS ANGELES (CBSLA) — It’s been 50 years since that “small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” and there’s no shortage of ways for Southern Californians to celebrate the July 20, 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing. A number of family-friendly anniversary events are underway this weekend across the Southland, many of them free. The Richard Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda will be free and open to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m Saturday and family-friendly activities will be offered all day. Free admission includes tours of the special exhibition “Apollo 11: One Giant Leap for Mankind” which brings the mission to life with moon rocks, astronaut suits, an exact replica of the command module, and perhaps most interestingly, a speech prepared for Nixon in case the lunar landing ended in disaster. And at 8 p.m., President Richard Nixon’s historic phone call to the astronauts will be relived with a special appearance by Alex Eisenhower, Nixon’s grandson. This picture taken 21 July 1969 of astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. walking on the surface of the moon near the leg of the Lunar Module (ML) \\\”Eagle\\\” and astronaut Neil Armstrong, during the Apollo 11 extravehicular activity (EVA). NASA no longer knows the whereabouts of the original tapes of man\\\’s first landing on the moon nearly 40 years ago, an official of the US space agency said 15 August 2006. AFP PHOTO/NASA (Photo by NASA / NASA / AFP) (Photo credit should read NASA/AFP/Getty Images) The Columbia Memorial Space Center in Downey, located  on the NASA site where all of the Apollo spacecraft that took astronauts to the moon were created, is also offering free admission Saturday and marking the anniversary with hands-on Apollo 11 exhibits and discussions with the engineers behind the historic mission.  The Griffith Observatory is presenting “To Walk on the Moon: Past, Present, and Future,” a day-long series of free talks about Apollo 11 and NASA’s plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2024. Celebrations at the The California Science Center include screenings of the IMAX film  “Apollo 11: First Steps Edition” and free, kid-friendly exhibits, including space capsules, moon rocks, and space suits.  
20 Jul 19
The Drawer

My interest in Glenn Frey began when I read about his death at 67 in early 2016. It was a shock because he was only two years older than me, because he was the lead singer and front man for The Eagles, for God’s sake, because, well, Why? Why would he go and do that? […]

20 Jul 19
The Crucible

The bottom line is that the doors and windows of Heaven is not just about us being redeemed, but also about the salvation of the Gentiles the world over…God is after hearts not skin colors.

20 Jul 19
Sport Archives

(What do you need to get to start the day: Get New York today in your inbox.) At a bar in Brooklyn this spring, when the hockey hockey was still going on, a man with a nose ring and glasses went to a visitor from Toronto who was watching the game Maple Leafs on a […]