3 ms·

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.

by Aaargh20318 10y ago

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.

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.