Itâs a pretty neat indication of why we should want transparency for
the strong and privacy for the weak.
Like that, totally stealing it.
That video was very well put together. That guy is the real deal indeed.
I wonder if the cops left the dashcam on on purpose. Thereâs little excuse for their actions, but perhaps they were pressured by higher-ups and this âaccidentâ was their way of dealing with it. Usually when cops do something dirty the video is âlostâ or equipment failure is blamed before itâs submitted.
I kinda thought the same thing - maybe Iâve just seen too many TV shows, but it did sound like one of the cops was expositing the way someone does (on TV) when theyâre wearing a wire and trying to get something in the record or get someone else in to saying something incriminating.
Malheur = bad luck
great name for a town.
More like âunhappinessâ or âmisery,â but you got the gist of it.
Wait, what? âdonor to the police departmentâ? WTF? Do you frootloops down there actually privatise police departments? I mean I know that rich people the world over behave as if they own the babylon but really, formalising it?
Youâre doomed.
You can offer money to any business without expectation of recompense, hence âdonation.â The bad thing here is that the police provided service, effectively in exchange for said âdonation.â
Itâs a pretty neat indication of why we should want transparency for the strong and privacy for the weak.
Oh, boy⌠but that takes critical thinking. Now youâre really askinâ for trouble.
well we have privatised police and for profit prisons to go with them, but this is not one of those police. but we do allow donations to be made to police but not with the expectation of service in exchange (that would be bribery) this is illegal because the police were giving service in exchange for the donations.
of course it kinda goes without saying, if someone pays your check you do what they say, so perhaps it SHOULDNâT be legal to donate to police as it incentivises the police to keep the donors happy.
Itâs a pretty neat indication of why we should want transparency for
the strong and privacy for the weak.
Buuuut not necessarily the weak-mindedâŚ
âItâs a pretty neat indication of why we should want transparency for the strong and privacy for the weak.â
so, who determines when one passes from the latter to the former? because thatâs where the real power lies.
Why?
You might be taking this too literally.
Maybe.
Itâs certainly the former, but Iâm afraid I canât see how itâs also a case for the latter.
Iâd be interested to come across a neat example of both in one; then weâd have something to go with that great soundbite.
That guy is brilliant. Iâve seldom seen such a vicious, yet deserved takedown by a concerned citizen.
Oregonâs got some pretty strong public records laws. A typical scenario is that a highly placed public official gets caught having an affair with someone whoâs lower on the totem pole. The press then gets all of their email.
The only quibble I have with Mr. Hindi (the videoâs narrator) is that he didnât take the time to find out how the locals pronounce the word âMalheurâ in Malheur County.
Incorrectly? 
No, no, no. 
The correct way to pronounce Malheur County, when youâre in Malheur County, is the way the locals do. (Supposedly, the name of the county came from the Malheur River, which was supposedly named âRivière au Malheurâ by some French trappers whose property was stolen from their camp along the river in the distant past, at least according to the Oregon Blue Book.)
That applies everywhere. For example, if youâre standing on Bowdoin St. in North Portland, thereâs only one ârightâ way to pronounce the street name. Good luck, if youâre not from around there.
