Further reports from the state pitched into a shooting war? | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Further reports from the state pitched into a shooting war?

It works on different levels of consciousness

A policeman/woman doesn't need to be thinking ''I am a tool of the NWO and i am going to shoot to kill any civilian who messes with me''

They can often just be operating in a certain climate or under certain training programmes that tell them to reach for their gun early and pull their trigger without much provocation

A climate of 'them and us' can be created to maintain a climate of fear in which a police person is likely to be more trigger happy

A clip has been released recently of polcie gunning down a guy in what looks like suicide by cop

The guy steals two bottles of soda and puts them down on the pavement and is ranting angrily. He has a history of mental health problems. Someone calls the cops and when they arrive the guy starts yelling ''shoot me, shoot me already!'' or something to that effect. He pulls out a knife and starts walking towards the 2 cops who pump him full of about 12 rounds

The man is then down on the ground and dying but they roll him over and put handcuffs on him anyway...which is obviously going to prevent him stemming any bleeding so he's basically going to bleed out

They could have shot him in the legs...sure that might still hit the femeral artery but at least they'd be giving him a chance.

The Michael Brown guy wasn't moving towards the cops with a knife but they shot him anyway and there are plenty of clips that show the cops shooting unarmed people for example the homeless guy that was camping out in the foothills. The police went up there and started shouting at him (he also had a history of mental health problems) and they gunned him down when he did nothing menacing to them at all

Shooting someone 6 times inculuding 2 shots to the head shows a clear intent to kill

You've mentioned my 'perception of the world'...well here it is:

Some powerful people have banded together to increase their wealth at the expense of the many. They have driven the economy into the ground leaving many people in poverty and feeling extremely anxious

I don't buy that all mental health problems are a 'disease'; i believe they are caused by anxiety

So this cartel of powerful families has destroyed the economy for many people losing them their homes, their jobs, their partners, their self respect and so on and then those people are sometimes haveing breakdowns of sorts

The system does not then help those people back onto their feet they just drug them upto the eyeballs with synthetic drugs that the cartel make with their pharmaceutical corporations

When these people fall through the cracks of society and turn to crime or lunacy the system then guns them down as if they are mad dogs

It shouldn't be this way

Ok Muir, if someone ever comes at you with a knife and you have a gun, you are not allowed to shoot them. Got it? If I where in such a situation, you best believe it would be 10 in the chest 5 at the head. I ain't taking no chances. But if your ok with being stabbed then go ahead and don't defend yourself. Also if you ever have a gun and a person charges you and tries to take it you bbetter let them have it. They will probably shoot you but hey, that's what you seem to think is right. Do you know how many officers die each year from criminals? Yeah, if you had that over your head you'd be ready to defend yourself too. It's easy for you to complain because you weren't in the situation where your life was in danger, but you keep on talking about stuff you don't know about. that's ok. Freedom of speech man.
 
Ok Muir, if someone ever comes at you with a knife and you have a gun, you are not allowed to shoot them. Got it? If I where in such a situation, you best believe it would be 10 in the chest 5 at the head. I ain't taking no chances. But if your ok with being stabbed then go ahead and don't defend yourself. Also if you ever have a gun and a person charges you and tries to take it you bbetter let them have it. They will probably shoot you but hey, that's what you seem to think is right. Do you know how many officers die each year from criminals? Yeah, if you had that over your head you'd be ready to defend yourself too. It's easy for you to complain because you weren't in the situation where your life was in danger, but you keep on talking about stuff you don't know about. that's ok. Freedom of speech man.

Thats a logical fallacy as no one made the cop be a cop

We all have choices to make in this life

If you choose to be the goonsquad for the bankers then that is your choice and you will reap the consequences

But you should watch some of the ample video evidence online that shows cops gunning down unarmed people

Concerning the guy ranting on the pavement who wanted to commit suicide by cop, they had ample time to shoot to wound...watch the clip. The guy was jumping around shouting 'shoot me, shoot me'

In order to get them to shoot he had to pull a knife (you can't see a knife in the clip but thats what accounts are saying) and walk towards the two officers, who should clearly have sussed what was going on after receving the call and seeing the guy standing there shouting 'shoot me'

He was not out to kill an officer he was out to be killed by an officer and they obliged him

This is the thin end of the wedge

What this approach by the police means is that they are above the law and that they are being used to purge unwanted elements of society instead of society changing to help people so that they don't fall through the cracks

Its like judge dredd for fuck sake.....police are acting as judge, jury and executioner...but who has a right to decide who lives or dies?

If the police wanted to make a positive change to society then they should shoot the banksters who are looting our economy (just kidding!)
 
Some commentators are saying that the zionist controlled corporate media are trying to turn this into a black v's white race war to keep the people of the US divided and fighting amongst themselves

Let's hope folks are smarter than that
 
Thats a logical fallacy as no one made the cop be a cop

We all have choices to make in this life

If you choose to be the goonsquad for the bankers then that is your choice and you will reap the consequences

But you should watch some of the ample video evidence online that shows cops gunning down unarmed people

Concerning the guy ranting on the pavement who wanted to commit suicide by cop, they had ample time to shoot to wound...watch the clip. The guy was jumping around shouting 'shoot me, shoot me'

In order to get them to shoot he had to pull a knife (you can't see a knife in the clip but thats what accounts are saying) and walk towards the two officers, who should clearly have sussed what was going on after receving the call and seeing the guy standing there shouting 'shoot me'

He was not out to kill an officer he was out to be killed by an officer and they obliged him

This is the thin end of the wedge

What this approach by the police means is that they are above the law and that they are being used to purge unwanted elements of society instead of society changing to help people so that they don't fall through the cracks

Its like judge dredd for fuck sake.....police are acting as judge, jury and executioner...but who has a right to decide who lives or dies?

If the police wanted to make a positive change to society then they should shoot the banksters who are looting our economy (just kidding!)

You don't shoot to wound. If a person is coming at you to hurt you, wounding simply won't stop them. That's adrenaline for ya. Sure they might stop for fear it they might get enraged because you hurt them so would probably try todo more. And wound shots are 10 times harder to make. That's an unavoidable fact.
 
You don't shoot to wound. If a person is coming at you to hurt you, wounding simply won't stop them. That's adrenaline for ya. Sure they might stop for fear it they might get enraged because you hurt them so would probably try todo more. And wound shots are 10 times harder to make. That's an unavoidable fact.

You're obviously intent on ignoring the many clips of police out there shooting down people who are not coming at the police officers

You also seem intent on ignoring the militarisation of the police and the reasons for that militarisation

You also seem intent on ignoring the economic environment that has been created that is causing certain social ills

You also seemed unfazed at how the zionist media is trying to spin this into a race war

You are looking at this in a very narrow way and i think it would help your understanding if you stepped back from it and got some wider perspective
 
Last edited:
You're obviously intent on ignoring the many clips of police out there shooting down people who are not coming at the police officers

You also seem intent on ignoring the militarisation of the police and the reasons for that militarisation

You also seem intent on ignoring the economic environment that has been created that is causing certain social ills

You also seemed unfazed at how the zionist media is trying to spin this into a race war

You are looking at this in a very narrow way and i think it would help your understanding if you stepped back from it and got some wider perspective

I'm hardly ignoring. I know that there will be mistakes. There are bad cops, but your portraying almost all cops in a bad light with some of your comments which is simply incorrect. Just because there are connections didn't mean they are significant. I have a connection a with the judge in my home town because his son and I are good friends. If I get arrested and let off that doesn't mean it's a conspiracy to keep me out of jail. You see things that aren't really there. And you refuse to even marginally consider the idea that in all your infinite wisdom, there is even the slightest hint of a chance that you are wrong. Whenever someone dissagrees with you then you dissmiss them as fallen prey to your conspiracy because how could someone who dissagrees with you be right? Oh obviously they just aren't seeing the big picture. Well Muir, I see that your logic is false. You make blatent jumps that are rediculous and you refuse to consider them as such. You wear your confirmation bias like it's a new fashion, and sometimes it's laughable. I'm sorry, I really am. What a paranoid world you must live in.

What I see is two sides that are both being idiots. The cops and the people. And the media is only making it worse because they are a bunch of biased idiots who seem to enjoy blowing things out of proportion sometimes. However, you can't blame a cop for defending himself! Now I've heard from hearsay about the kids remarks and the police man's remarks. I didn't care much for either because I figured both are probably skewed. The last autopsy report I read from a reliable source seemed to corroborate the officers story. I later read a very skewed article that said the opposite. Seeing as the first one I read didn't have political terms and biased statements every other sentence, I find the former more reliable. Now you Muir trying to turn this into some scheme to take control of the public through force or whatever is ridiculous. Even what your talking about militirization of the police isn't near as bad as it sounds. It's not like they are giving them tanks! There giving them ammo. Stun type grenades. Some rifles. Trucks. most of which police have had for decades.

What made me really mad is this one news report was going on and on about the militirization of the police in Ferguson. They kept saying full battle gear and bombs. What I said was erm, no. I looked at every picture that the news report had and I didn't see any battle gear, and they've had stun type grenades forever. They are just more advanced now. If that news report was to be believed you'd think there's was a full scale war going on over there! But it's not! Police are not gunning down civilians. There's no marshal law. But that news report seemed to implythat it was. Yeah, I think the media are biased idiots. Now that being said, I think the police are being idiots because of who was in charge among afew other reasons. The people also need to calm their butts down and act like people, not animals. For example, don't throw riots! Dont go looting! It's but that hard to act civil for goodness sake.


Sorry if some of my posts have been hostile. I've been a bit stressed and short tempered today. And I just really hate when people don't use their heads.
 
I'm hardly ignoring. I know that there will be mistakes. There are bad cops, but your portraying almost all cops in a bad light with some of your comments which is simply incorrect.

No i'm saying that they are being militarised in terms of their equipment, training and attitude

Just because there are connections didn't mean they are significant. I have a connection a with the judge in my home town because his son and I are good friends. If I get arrested and let off that doesn't mean it's a conspiracy to keep me out of jail.

That would be nepotism and a breach of justice. It would be a 'conspiracy' and it would be 'significant'. You shouldn't be treated differently because you are pals with a judge. A different judge should handle the trial

If you think about how our society works....the higher up you go the more wealthy/powerful people become and they are all mingling with other wealthy and powerful people; this would mean that they are friends with judges, politicians and bankers and are by the standard you present above are above the law

You see things that aren't really there.

You're being vague...what is it i see that isn't there?

And you refuse to even marginally consider the idea that in all your infinite wisdom, there is even the slightest hint of a chance that you are wrong.

Wrong about what?

Try to be more specific, you are slinging accusations but not saying what they are based on

Whenever someone dissagrees with you then you dissmiss them as fallen prey to your conspiracy because how could someone who dissagrees with you be right?

When?

Present an example please otherwise you are just slinging mud

Oh obviously they just aren't seeing the big picture. Well Muir, I see that your logic is false. You make blatent jumps that are rediculous and you refuse to consider them as such.

Which jumps?

What are you talking about? What are these 'jumps' you talk about? How about actually presenting some examples of these things you are accusing me of?

You wear your confirmation bias like it's a new fashion, and sometimes it's laughable. I'm sorry, I really am. What a paranoid world you must live in.

I think if you are not 'paranoid' at this point then you are not paying attention

What I see is two sides that are both being idiots. The cops and the people. And the media is only making it worse because they are a bunch of biased idiots who seem to enjoy blowing things out of proportion sometimes. However, you can't blame a cop for defending himself! Now I've heard from hearsay about the kids remarks and the police man's remarks. I didn't care much for either because I figured both are probably skewed. The last autopsy report I read from a reliable source seemed to corroborate the officers story. I later read a very skewed article that said the opposite. Seeing as the first one I read didn't have political terms and biased statements every other sentence, I find the former more reliable. Now you Muir trying to turn this into some scheme to take control of the public through force or whatever is ridiculous. Even what your talking about militirization of the police isn't near as bad as it sounds. It's not like they are giving them tanks! There giving them ammo. Stun type grenades. Some rifles. Trucks. most of which police have had for decades.

What planet are you on?

They are giving them armoured vehicles and apache helecopters!

Man you are so out of touch with what is going on

Look if you won't listen to me then listen to this retired green beret commander warning about the plan to bring about martial law:

[video=youtube;Osfb1SKHPG0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Osfb1SKHPG0#t=162[/video]


What made me really mad is this one news report was going on and on about the militirization of the police in Ferguson. They kept saying full battle gear and bombs. What I said was erm, no. I looked at every picture that the news report had and I didn't see any battle gear, and they've had stun type grenades forever. They are just more advanced now.

The police ARE being given full battle gear

[video=youtube;K0e68QRtu30]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0e68QRtu30#t=143[/video]

If that news report was to be believed you'd think there's was a full scale war going on over there! But it's not! Police are not gunning down civilians. There's no marshal law. But that news report seemed to implythat it was. Yeah, I think the media are biased idiots. Now that being said, I think the police are being idiots because of who was in charge among afew other reasons. The people also need to calm their butts down and act like people, not animals. For example, don't throw riots! Dont go looting! It's but that hard to act civil for goodness sake.

Even if the people protest peacefully the government can still plant 'agent provocateurs' amongst the protestors to incite violence if they want to escalate things


Sorry if some of my posts have been hostile. I've been a bit stressed and short tempered today. And I just really hate when people don't use their heads.

You don't need to apologise...i'm stressed as well!

I'm watching your country and my country spiral into a police state and many of the public are still not using their heads enough to see it!
 
That would be nepotism and a breach of justice. It would be a 'conspiracy' and it would be 'significant'. You shouldn't be treated differently because you are pals with a judge. A different judge should handle the trial
And here you just demonstrated the error in your logic. You see, here's the thing. Just because there is a connection does not mean it would effect events. If I would get let off it would be because I was not guilty, not because of my relation to the judge. You just assume that because I have a relation with the judge then that would effect the result. That is simply false. Here's another example. My parents own the business that I worked at over the summer. I'm going to ask one of the corporate managers to write a recommendation letter for me for a college job. Your logic would imply that because my parents own the company, then I would obviously get a good reference. There's a connection. However this is a false assumption. I don't know for sure if I will get a good reference letter, but the person I'm going to ask is someone who often times saw the work I specifically did and when I interacted with other people. He often times complimented the jobs that I would get done. Now you might try to dismiss that as him kissing up to the bosses son, and again you would be wrong. When I would screw up, he would make sure I knew about it as well. Now this isn't to say that connections with people are never used. In fact, many times it is. However, it's also wrong for you to think that if there is a connection, then it is obviously used.

If you think about how our society works....the higher up you go the more wealthy/powerful people become and they are all mingling with other wealthy and powerful people; this would mean that they are friends with judges, politicians and bankers and are by the standard you present above are above the law
And that is the error. You assumed that if there are connections, then they are used. That is simply not correct. Sure, in some or many cases they are used, but it is not correct to say all. Therefore you need to also prove that the connections where taken advantage of. Since you can't do that, you simply assume that it is used. Makes it easier for you to believe what you want to believe.



You're being vague...what is it i see that isn't there?
Supposed connections between certain people. You assume that people intend to do certain things and that certain things are happening without any actual evidence for that to be the case.



Wrong about what?

Try to be more specific, you are slinging accusations but not saying what they are based on
Most of our previous discussions. You don't even consider the possibility that you might be wrong. You hold your truth as closely as a zealot, and because of that you have error.



When?

Present an example please otherwise you are just slinging mud
To name two, the graphene and vaccine discussions.



Which jumps?

What are you talking about? What are these 'jumps' you talk about? How about actually presenting some examples of these things you are accusing me of?
I have pointed them out, and you didn't consider what I said for the reasons I listed above.



I think if you are not 'paranoid' at this point then you are not paying attention
That's your opinion based on your perspective of the world which is inherently flawed. I'm not sure if the paranoia comes from your flawed perspective, or if your flawed perspective comes from your paranoia. My guess is the latter.



What planet are you on?

They are giving them armoured vehicles and apache helecopters!
And that is where you are very wrong. First off, Aircraft, Rotary wing does not mean apache. It only means helicopter. There are WAY more helicopters than just the apache. Also, the apache helicopter is priced upwards of $52 million dollars. The helicopters your referencing where bought at $18 million. That seems to imply that it wasn't an apache. You just believe what you want to believe don't you? lol. Classic muir. Again your confirmation bias is showing.
Now, as for the vehicles, all they have gotten are mine resistant vehicles. APC like vehicles. NOT TANKS AND NOT HUMVS. That video made it look like that's what they had, but I cannot find record of actual war machine vehicles being sent to the police. Those vehicles are made more to transport people rather than wage war. SWAT teams have had such vehicles for a long time, these are just more effective and efficient at moving personal. The guns they are buying, the M14 and M16 have also been held by SWAT for a long time. Personally I don't like the AR models. Too forward heavy. I prefer the Tavor or other bullpup rifles. Easier to hold and shoot as long as you don't need as long of range as the AR. As for body armor, they where deployed with standard or slightly better than standard body armor. That's the only thing you got actually correct here, lol.


Even if the people protest peacefully the government can still plant 'agent provocateurs' amongst the protestors to incite violence if they want to escalate things
So by this argument, even when the people start the violence, its actually the government. Well sure, there is a way for the government to do that. However, that doesn't mean they are going to do that. It is wrong for you to assume that they would. It is good to question if they did, but there is no evidence that such is the case. To assume that it is the case is another example of your faulty logic.


Now that I have discounted your fear mongering, the actual point that you are trying to get across in a completely incorrect and hostile way by using false facts and trying to scare people with facts that seem worse than they really are, can actually be addressed.
Now my opinion is the same as yours. That the police don't need what they are being given (except for smoke/flash/stun grenades and other crowed control weapons as those are non-lethal). Perhaps the occasional helicopter or the occasional armored vehicle, but not in the numbers they are getting them in. Ammo doesn't matter for them to buy in my opinion as well as some armor or guns for SWAT type personnel, however I don't agree with giving them to all police. SWAT have extra training for such weapons. I find it hard to rationalize the quantity being bought, however that does not prove the malintent of the police. If you want to suggest that this is a problem, it is far more accurate to say that the Ferguson case shows the police response in the event of what they are using. It is my perspective that they are not using the most effective method to disperse hostilities. The simple idea of not dressing up in a way that is so associated with war would probably help. However I am hesitant to criticize the responses because I don't know the details as well in that area. There could be variables not being shared over the news due to the biased media or other possible complications. What if the public is actually shooting at police, or are actually hurting other people? I know I've heard that there is wide spread looting and I think something about other robberies. That's the extent of my knowledge on that though. As for if the response is acceptable, I would need better detail. However as it seems to me, it does seem to be an overly aggressive response.

Now if it turns out to be the case that the police did respond in an overly aggressive manor, then I would say the militarization of the police is a really bad idea because of the potential of developing into a police state. However I find that extremely unlikely. But since it is a possibility, it must be accounted for. That is my analysis muir. Notice we reach a similar conclusion, however I don't use fear mongering and false information or persuasion to explain my perspective. Of the facts I have, I actually make sure of their reliability or I state that I do not know for sure when I give another opinion. Perhaps this comes back to the discussion in another thread of conspiracy theorists versus rational skepticism. Quite a big difference between you and I muir I think.

You don't need to apologise...i'm stressed as well!
I'm stressed because of school and the fact that I am going to have to write a multiple page paper on the philosophy of some physics question, probably something about quantum dynamics or black hole physics for a 400 level course taught by a noble prize winner. Your stressed because of your paranoia.


Edit:
To clarify my example with the judge, I'm sure there are some people who might get let off because they are friends with a judge, however I know that in my case, that would not occur. I'm not saying that it is always where a person gets let off because of friendship and I'm not saying a person always gets let off because of they where not guilty. There is some combination of the two. It is impossible to prove which is more common.
 
Last edited:
Simply we need to know what happened. Simply we never will because both sides have biases. I have some cop friends and naturally before knowing what really happened, they take the cops side. People that dont trust cops see something else.
Screw all of this. In this day and age we can put cameras on o police officers. They are public "servants". They dont get a say about it.
 
Simply we need to know what happened. Simply we never will because both sides have biases. I have some cop friends and naturally before knowing what really happened, they take the cops side. People that dont trust cops see something else.
Screw all of this. In this day and age we can put cameras on o police officers. They are public "servants". They dont get a say about it.

Cameras for cops have already been introduced here and are practically really popular with the police here because they are that often encountering the consequences of a society which has messed up social attitudes, including attitudes to crime and punishment, law enforcement, authority, delinquency and anti-social behaviour.

I'm an outsider commentating on the US but I see this as an issue bigger than this one instance and bigger even than the police versus the public they serve too, I've seen videos of store owners responding to what they considered vandalism outside their shop by skaters and then follow ups with confrontations in a car park were the guy encounters a much bigger friend or family member of the skaters, the whole thing rationalised, framed and presented in a pretty juvenile "bully gets what's coming to him" way.

Perhaps that's all there is to it, there's always been intergenerational conflict but most of the time I think there's very poor examples set by both parties, cameras and filming the whole thing certainly isnt the solution either.

When I was at school and had history classes we were taught not to be credulous about photos as historical evidence and exactly how Stalin doctored and airbrushed Trotsky out of pictures or they made up pictures from the crimean war which had cannon balls which were out of service by then, that kind of thing, but not everyone got the whole story that it wasnt just the authorities which could use technology in a distorting way etc.

I work in a field in wich we are wary about the deployment of recording devices, they are so readily available and there's little or no policing of their misuse or thought given by some pretty challenging individuals to confidentiality issues etc. If you see a five minute clip on youtube of someone attempting to deal with a situation and it appears like they are losing their shit you could be missing the build up, context and their being driven to breaking point by someone who is a fruitcake or put a lot of planning into precisely that situation.

This is where I think the social attitudes context is important, we've got a culture in which a lot of popular cinema, media, publishing has featured young people struggling with wicked authorities, often run by old men or at the very least unrelatable or wicked adults, and their violence or suppression, the hunger games, divergent cycle are just two examples but there's really no filter or control over who receives these materials or their understanding and comprehension of the same.

So you may have young people who are already vulnerable or could even, at the extreme end of things, have personality disorders like the kids in Columbine or that guy who made the freaky "I am vengence" video, watching these films, reading these books, believing that when someone making reasonable requests of them is some kind of tyrant to be overthrown. Throw a couple of criminally delinquent adults into that kind of mix and you've a recipe for all kinds of grooming to criminality or atrocities, what's referred to as radicalisation when its political islam or probably the process Timothy McVay was suspectible to and was hinted at in the movie Arlington Road, those are all just extreme examples too, more mundane ones would be creating enough low level hassel to occupy the authorities so attention can be diverted from drug deals, sexual exploitation of minors or crime like that.

Maybe if the public response had been different and the public had handled the situation the police wouldnt even have been on the scene to begin with, you know?
 
Over reactions to problems doesn't mean there aren't problems.

There are REAL problems with the police force. If they thought cameras were a good idea THEY'D BE USING THEM BY NOW. Especially considering that there's a camera in nearly every squad car already.

They don't want to be on camera constantly and that says something. There's been several cases where bystanders were recording police action with their phones and they were harassed and had their phones confiscated. That's starting to change. In 2007 Simon Glik was arrested on felony charges for publicly video taping police roughing up somebody. Arrested for video taping police. In 2007. That's not something that should have been happening in the year Two Thousand and Fucking Seven in The United States of America.

Now in a lot of places they can't arrest you for having a camera. However if you have a camera often times they'll find another reason.

Edit:
Also the departments that do use dash cams... Well they're dash cams. They face forward and don't move, and don't have a very wide angle. It's very convenient to end up "off camera" with a dash cam system.
 
Last edited:
Also keep in mind that UK cops are not US cops, Irish cops are not US cops, and RCMP are not US cops.
 
http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-happens-when-police-officers-wear-body-cameras-1408320244

So it is in Rialto, Calif., where an entire police force is wearing so-called body-mounted cameras, no bigger than pagers, that record everything that transpires between officers and citizens. In the first year after the cameras' introduction, the use of force by officers declined 60%, and citizen complaints against police fell 88%.

Use of force declined 60% with cameras and complaints fell by 88%

What does this tell you? If a mere camera drops use of force by 60% what does that say about the amount of force that police are wont to use off camera??
 
Being a servant shouldn't dehumanize someone.

That's not dehumanizing, that's having standards. Something which is entirely necessary when a person has as much power as a police officer.

Standard procedure is not a suggestion and it is not dehumanizing and it is something they all must abide by. This is simply adding another rule to what already exists.

Edit:
Also I'd argue that agreeing to be a public servant is also implicit agreement to follow more strict codes than the average person.

Yes they volunteer their time but so do vigilantes yet there's a difference between the two. If they don't like one they can go risk being the other if they prefer.
 
Last edited:
Being a servant shouldn't dehumanize someone.

Yeah, that was a bit of a messed up expectation of public servants to be honest.
 
Yeah, that was a bit of a messed up expectation of public servants to be honest.

It is not messed up.

The higher up the chain you go, the more strict the expectations should be. This is no different than the requirement to be a certain age to drink, have a license to drive, etc etc

Average citizens have many non-negotiable expectations and this should not be relaxed simply because one is supposedly doing a good for the public. And in fact if their point is to actually do good for the public then they should not mind. Otherwise they are in the wrong position.

Edit:
Also you wouldn't see firefighters or medics complaining about standards. They would simply rise to them and try their best to be impeccable.
 
Moreover I'd argue that they can be human when they are off duty.

While on duty, the humanity of the citizen trumps the humanity of the officer in the event of a conflict. If mandatory cameras makes safer citizens then there shouldn't be a say. If they disagree to such an extent they should present their reasons and they have to be very good ones. Otherwise they can find another line of work.