I ignored your first comment. Now you’re just trolling.
2 Likes
We set a high bar for Judges and they don’t have instant life or death access to a scalpel, firearm, or aircraft controls; we also pay them well.
I am inclined to agree with markacryan, I worry about the programming the military instils as well as the classism the officer/enlisted divide burns in. I don’t think military personnel are unredeemable, I just believe that transferring fraternal military culture to public safety intact has shown itself to be dangerous. We should have higher standards for the people we hire to protect our families than those we send to kill and die for the lowest possible price.
Reforming the military and expecting a higher standard of professionalism especially from enlisted with on average only a basic education and maturity is a whole different discussion.
6 Likes
Or by judges. You want to use the cop’s recorder as defense? Oh, it wasn’t on? Accused goes free.
7 Likes
If it’s maintained, and something gets out, then the chief has to answer. So - no problem with the duff equipment.
1 Like
Actually, ex-military make better cops than the military rejects you find in every department.
1 Like
But that be incentive to vandalize the antenna by non-police.
2 Likes
I don’t see why the bar for ex-military personnel should be different than anyone else, since the code of conduct we want soldiers to follow has nothing at all to do with how we want police officers to act.
Clearly, the recording devices need the ability for self-attestation regarding their operational posture. If this is not already embedded in the technology, it needs to be…like last week.
2 Likes
We are clearly done with all of this. Roll it back, cut the budgets, layoffs, and reduce policing authorities dramatically. They are not serving the public good.
It seems like the easiest way to resolve this is just to say that any time a cop is accused of something during a period where they failed to record their actions they will be guilty until proven innocent. Any cop who doesn’t want to find himself in real trouble real fast will make sure his equipment is working. before he goes out.
2 Likes
Citizen spot checks can be used, too. The state of the antenna could be detected remotely and a camera crew (with another camera crew in reserve) could confront the officer, asking why the upload has been disabled. No technology is foolproof, it takes people to maintain the chain of accountability.
1 Like
Ah, but who will take them to jail?
2 Likes
Good in theory, but completely against the whole concept of justice and “innocent until proven guilty”.
To be the devil’s advocate, what’s to keep me from snapping off an antennae while a co-conspirator distracts a police officer, then immediately filing a complaint that they’re responsible for a murder that I had just committed? Obviously a stupid and unrealistic situation, but would the officer then be considered “guilty until proven innocent”?
Actually. Yes. They would.
Though, in this case, the burden would be a hell of a lot lower. IE… suspect killed…which SHOULD have been visible/audible on police mounted camera (and it’s not). They STILL have to go though all the motions… calling coroner…getting autopsy…
BUT…the main thing in this case would be…if the POLICE STATEMENTS don’t match the CORONERS REPORT… the cop SHOULD be tried. (That’s where the problem is). IF HE ISN’T…there is no reason for the law. IF he is…there’s ALSO no reason for the law since he’s ALREADY broken existing laws… Which is where I’m conflicted on this…
THAT SAID… going INTO a situation which you cannot know where things are going to go…and disabling this feature is… well… OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. NO question. Even if NOTHING WAS DONE WRONG… it’s obstruction…
The obvious problem here is that it would totally decimate the amount of police. As to whether this might be a good thing…well…
“with more than half of the receiver antennas being vandalized or removed”
Not quite: nearly half the microphones in the Southern Bureau, but precisely 30% of the 300 equipped vehicles department wide.
I absolutely agree, but “guilty until proven innocent” on whatever they’re accused of is simply offensive to the base concept of “justice”. There’s a big difference between your updated statement than an officer should be tried if there’s any question as to his guilt, and your initial statement that “any time a cop is accused of something during a period where they failed to record their actions they will be guilty until proven innocent”.
I’ll bite on the “you’re guilty of obstruction of justice if reporting/recording equipment gets damaged on their watch”, but to oversimplify the SITUATION (see I can do random all caps too!) and state that they’re guilty until proven innocent of anything they happen to be accused of is counter to the ideals of american justice, not to mention a slippery slope (well, if the po po can be considered guilty until proven innocent, why not everyone else?).
My experience with ex-military where I work is that they are all about us doing what we’re told immediately without question or confusion. They’ve said explicitly that if they come running at you shouting and you make any move toward them or defy them, they will take you down, with “move toward them” defined to including turning toward the noise or moving your hands at all and “defy them” including saying “what?”. This is in an office, with deaf people and people who need assistance to “get down get down!”. They make a point of keeping themselves separate from the rest of us, so they have no idea who works there. The never-military say “hello”, know us and who will need extra help in a crisis. I don’t want to deal with someone who thinks that shock and awe with a combat shotgun is the first level of dealing with a crisis.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
