221–230 of 240 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've tried this, the police refuse.
I mean at some point refusals only go so far. I’m absolutely not pretending it would be easy, but when you refuse to do your job under new conditions for your employer… you lose your job. New police departments wouldn’t be the worst thing for a lot of cities.
A police officer in performance of his duties should have zero expectation of privacy, and has a legal obligation to fill out an accurate duty log, which is such that it may be used as evidence in court. Body camera footage should be viewed as an extension of that, and when missing or unavailable, that absence should be viewed in the same light as a failure to properly document something in a duty log --- it is a der…
The simple answer is for there to be consequences. Turning off or camera or deleting the footage should be treated the same as not reading a suspect their Miranda rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Umm, I'm familiar with one of those locations that closed. It had very little parking, was extremely understaffed (1 active cashier working slowly...), and didn't have much foot traffic. There weren't any bags to put my stuff in when I checked out. It was such a poor experience I never went back there, despite it being the Target nearest to me. I was zero percent surprised when I heard it closed for good. Businesses…
I'm also familiar with one of the locations that closed. While I was shopping, it was raided by 80 people who also acted violently towards the patrons. It was such a poor experience I never went back there, despite it being the Target nearest to me. I was zero percent surprised when I heard it closed for good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm also familiar with one of the locations that closed. While I was shopping, it was raided by 80 people who also acted violently towards the patrons. It was such a poor experience I never went back there, despite it being the Target nearest to me. I was zero percent surprised when I heard it closed for good.
Aping the style of my comment and being vague on any details makes it sound like you're just lying. :-/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is there a button at all? Record everything all the time. Sort it out later. The vast majority of it will be useless footage, but so what? If I was a cop I would certainly want every donut I eat to be recorded if it also means there is no change I get falsely accused of improper interaction with the public. 99.9% of the time no one will look at my donut footage.
I believe it would be acceptable for the camera to be turned off when the police officer steps into a bathroom during a break to use the facilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, some confidentiality issues.. I'm pretty sure such system would be abused. To leak footages of low situation in peoples' lives. To make sure cops enforce rules by the letter even if situation is objectively silly on the spot. To get dirt on cops by logging mistakes which everybody does. That's like requiring screensharing + camera on for remote workers 100% of the time. It sucks.
Remote tech workers aren't expected to occasionally assault or kill people as part of carrying out their duties.
Policing is hard enough job as it is. Make it even harsher by 24/7 monitoring and even fewer people will show up. Then you'll have to scrap the bottom of the barrel to find any officers. Which is not exactly good for the society.
Looking from afar, US policing issues surrounding gun use is just a reflection of the overall society. US as a whole is overall much more aggressive society. Both police and criminals are more aggressive.
A police officer in performance of his duties should have zero expectation of privacy, and has a legal obligation to fill out an accurate duty log, which is such that it may be used as evidence in court. Body camera footage should be viewed as an extension of that, and when missing or unavailable, that absence should be viewed in the same light as a failure to properly document something in a duty log --- it is a der…
We need the police. I guarantee the alternative power structures that would develop in their absence would be worse. This said, if we want people to sign up for the role, there needs to be some protection and privacy in place for them. They are also people, with families and in some cases organized and dedicated opposition. In pursuit of these goals, zero expectation of privacy seems like an unrealistically high bar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a jury would be very sympathetic to this argument.
You'd think so, but the average jury is extremely deferential to police. In part because a lot of places include some questions about how you feel about the police in the standard jury screening interview, and expressing any negative opinion about police-reliability is likely to get you struck. e.g. check out the NYC standard set of questions: https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/8-Colloquies/Voir%20Dire... -- note th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you list some of the ways police have been stripped of their ability to do their job?
See all the law changes in Oregon since 2018. Cops for example can’t pull you over for ghetto cars anymore. Cops can’t use the smell of weed as probable cause, and far far more.
And pot is legal in Oregon, so why would the smell be probable cause? Besides, cops invent PC on a routine basis.