Cops accidentally record themselves admitting they harassed activist at rodeo owners' request: "God, we're gonna get sued"


#1

[Permalink]


#2

It’s a pretty neat indication of why we should want transparency for
the strong and privacy for the weak.

Like that, totally stealing it.


#3

That video was very well put together. That guy is the real deal indeed.


#4

I wonder if the cops left the dashcam on on purpose. There’s little excuse for their actions, but perhaps they were pressured by higher-ups and this ‘accident’ was their way of dealing with it. Usually when cops do something dirty the video is ‘lost’ or equipment failure is blamed before it’s submitted.


#5

I kinda thought the same thing - maybe I’ve just seen too many TV shows, but it did sound like one of the cops was expositing the way someone does (on TV) when they’re wearing a wire and trying to get something in the record or get someone else in to saying something incriminating.


#6

Malheur = bad luck

great name for a town.


#7

More like “unhappiness” or “misery,” but you got the gist of it.


#8

Wait, what? ‘donor to the police department’? 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?

You’re doomed.


#9

You can offer money to any business without expectation of recompense, hence “donation.” The bad thing here is that the police provided service, effectively in exchange for said “donation.”


#10

It’s 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 you’re really askin’ for trouble.


#11

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 SHOULDN’T be legal to donate to police as it incentivises the police to keep the donors happy.


#12

It’s a pretty neat indication of why we should want transparency for
the strong and privacy for the weak.

Buuuut not necessarily the weak-minded…


#13

“It’s a pretty neat indication of why we should want transparency for the strong and privacy for the weak.”

so, who determines when one passes from the latter to the former? because that’s where the real power lies.


#14

Why?


#15

You might be taking this too literally.
Maybe.


#16

It’s certainly the former, but I’m afraid I can’t see how it’s also a case for the latter.

I’d be interested to come across a neat example of both in one; then we’d have something to go with that great soundbite.


#17

That guy is brilliant. I’ve seldom seen such a vicious, yet deserved takedown by a concerned citizen.


#18

Oregon’s got some pretty strong public records laws. A typical scenario is that a highly placed public official gets caught having an affair with someone who’s lower on the totem pole. The press then gets all of their email.

The only quibble I have with Mr. Hindi (the video’s narrator) is that he didn’t take the time to find out how the locals pronounce the word “Malheur” in Malheur County.


#19

Incorrectly? :wink:


#20

No, no, no. :slight_smile: The correct way to pronounce Malheur County, when you’re in Malheur County, is the way the locals do. (Supposedly, the name of the county came from the Malheur River, which was supposedly named “Rivière au Malheur” 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 you’re standing on Bowdoin St. in North Portland, there’s only one “right” way to pronounce the street name. Good luck, if you’re not from around there.