5 ms·

> The presumption of innocence needs to be a two-way street, surely? No, the police should be held to a higher standard. They are not citizens when they are ou

by Aaargh20318 10y ago

> The presumption of innocence needs to be a two-way street, surely? No, the police should be held to a higher standard. They are not citizens when they are out on patrol, they are representatives of the government. IMHO police officers should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

danieltillett 10y ago
I don't think anyone should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.
- Aaargh20318 10y ago
  They should be able to justify every single action they perform while on duty anyway, and it should be easy with a bodycam. I see no problem in presumption of guilt for officers on duty. At the very least it'll give them incentive to actually wear the cam.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    I am not disagreeing that police officers should be held to a higher standard than others (with great power comes great responsibility), but nobody should ever be presumed guilty and be left having to prove their innocence.
    - Aaargh20318 10y ago
      No one is forcing you to become a police officer. If you want special privileges (e.g. allowed to use deadly force) then you also get special responsibilities.
      - cujo 10y ago
        You're dodging the issue. Assuming the officer is guilty outright, seem dangerous honestly.
        beachstartup 10y ago
        haha dude. he's taking the position because it's extreme. it's called moving the overton window. political talk taken at face value is almost worthless. you can't literally argue with people like this on the internet.
        Aaargh20318 10y ago
        Why would it be dangerous ? As I said, that officer needs to account for all his actions during working hours anyway, so there should never be a problem proving his/her innocence. Or to put it another way: if an officer has, say an hour, on a working day in which (s)he can't account for his/her whereabouts and actions, wouldn't that be a good reason to suspect and investigate that officer ? What was he/she doing in that time, why did he/she feel the need to drop 'off the grid' for an hour ? If they have nothing to hide, then why would it be a problem ?
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        Making the police officer career more risky by imposing arbitrary sanctions in case of bad luck isn't going to improve your chances of recruiting good police officers. Yes, there are special responsibilities, but due process is important. If it's not happening, make that process work. Your approach is similar to "there is too much crime, let's make more laws so that more things are criminal".
        Aaargh20318 10y ago
        > Making the police officer career more risky by imposing arbitrary sanctions in case of bad luck isn't going to improve your chances of recruiting good police officers. No, it lowers the chances of recruiting bad apples. People don't do anything wrong and who keep the bodycam running all day have nothing to fear. > Your approach is similar to "there is too much crime, let's make more laws so that more things are criminal". There is too much crime because the worst criminals work in law enforcement. This would be a way to weed them out.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        The old "you have nothing to fear from constant surveillance" argument. Used by everybody, despot and activist alike.
  - brewdad 10y ago
    They should he held to a higher standard when off-duty as well. Many (most?) officers carry even when off-duty and would take on the first responder role if needed. In my state anyone with a CDL who drives with any amount of alcohol in his system is guilty of DUII. It doesn't matter if you are on vacation, driving your personal vehicle, hundreds of miles from home or driving an 18 wheeler through rush hour traffic. We should hold police to a similar higher standard.
    - Aaargh20318 10y ago
      > They should he held to a higher standard when off-duty as well. Maybe slightly higher, but that is not the point. The point is that a police officer on duty is not a person doing a job, he is the embodiment of the government. If a police officer shoots an innocent man, that man was not killed by a rogue police officer, that man was killed by an agent of the government. For this reason they should be kept on an extremely short leash. As in: if we could have a computer take over their brain during duty hours and basically turn the officers into remote-controlled robots then we should.
BurningFrog 10y ago
There is, in general, no way to prove you're innocent.
pc86 10y ago
Unfortunately your opinion runs contrary to basic jurisprudence.

danieltillett 10y ago

I don't think anyone should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Aaargh20318 10y ago
They should be able to justify every single action they perform while on duty anyway, and it should be easy with a bodycam. I see no problem in presumption of guilt for officers on duty. At the very least it'll give them incentive to actually wear the cam.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  I am not disagreeing that police officers should be held to a higher standard than others (with great power comes great responsibility), but nobody should ever be presumed guilty and be left having to prove their innocence.
  - Aaargh20318 10y ago
    No one is forcing you to become a police officer. If you want special privileges (e.g. allowed to use deadly force) then you also get special responsibilities.
    - cujo 10y ago
      You're dodging the issue. Assuming the officer is guilty outright, seem dangerous honestly.
      - beachstartup 10y ago
        haha dude. he's taking the position because it's extreme. it's called moving the overton window. political talk taken at face value is almost worthless. you can't literally argue with people like this on the internet.
      - Aaargh20318 10y ago
        Why would it be dangerous ? As I said, that officer needs to account for all his actions during working hours anyway, so there should never be a problem proving his/her innocence. Or to put it another way: if an officer has, say an hour, on a working day in which (s)he can't account for his/her whereabouts and actions, wouldn't that be a good reason to suspect and investigate that officer ? What was he/she doing in that time, why did he/she feel the need to drop 'off the grid' for an hour ? If they have nothing to hide, then why would it be a problem ?
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Making the police officer career more risky by imposing arbitrary sanctions in case of bad luck isn't going to improve your chances of recruiting good police officers. Yes, there are special responsibilities, but due process is important. If it's not happening, make that process work. Your approach is similar to "there is too much crime, let's make more laws so that more things are criminal".
      - Aaargh20318 10y ago
        > Making the police officer career more risky by imposing arbitrary sanctions in case of bad luck isn't going to improve your chances of recruiting good police officers. No, it lowers the chances of recruiting bad apples. People don't do anything wrong and who keep the bodycam running all day have nothing to fear. > Your approach is similar to "there is too much crime, let's make more laws so that more things are criminal". There is too much crime because the worst criminals work in law enforcement. This would be a way to weed them out.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        The old "you have nothing to fear from constant surveillance" argument. Used by everybody, despot and activist alike.
- brewdad 10y ago
  They should he held to a higher standard when off-duty as well. Many (most?) officers carry even when off-duty and would take on the first responder role if needed. In my state anyone with a CDL who drives with any amount of alcohol in his system is guilty of DUII. It doesn't matter if you are on vacation, driving your personal vehicle, hundreds of miles from home or driving an 18 wheeler through rush hour traffic. We should hold police to a similar higher standard.
  - Aaargh20318 10y ago
    > They should he held to a higher standard when off-duty as well. Maybe slightly higher, but that is not the point. The point is that a police officer on duty is not a person doing a job, he is the embodiment of the government. If a police officer shoots an innocent man, that man was not killed by a rogue police officer, that man was killed by an agent of the government. For this reason they should be kept on an extremely short leash. As in: if we could have a computer take over their brain during duty hours and basically turn the officers into remote-controlled robots then we should.

BurningFrog 10y ago

There is, in general, no way to prove you're innocent.

pc86 10y ago

Unfortunately your opinion runs contrary to basic jurisprudence.