5 ms·
Could there be a legitimate reason? Sometimes corrupt officials are placed under surveillance to catch other corrupt officials. If you out them you lose your in
by api 8y ago
Could there be a legitimate reason? Sometimes corrupt officials are placed under surveillance to catch other corrupt officials. If you out them you lose your information source.
- Kinnard 8y agoThis is too easily gamed to suffice as a rationale.
- ericcumbee 8y agoThey would have just cited the exception for records pertaining to ongoing investigations. I assume there is a provision in the Cal Open Records act, there is in the Georgia Open Records act.
- badfrog 8y agoAnother potential reason is that the list would be a great starting point for somebody who was looking for a police officer to bribe. I'm not saying that's sufficient justification, just spitballing ideas.
- api 8y agoThat's a better idea than mine. It could also potentially out undercovers.
- DoreenMichele 8y agoThe fact that it's currently a secret actually makes them potentially vulnerable to blackmail. Airing it would remove that threat.
- badfrog 8y agoI meant that on average a police officer who has committed a crime in the past is more susceptible than one who has not. It seems your suggestion is that people would fight to keep their past crimes secret? That's an interesting alternative view.
- DoreenMichele 8y agoBlackmail requires the existence of a dirty secret. No (dirty) secret = no blackmail. I do realize blackmail and bribery are not the same thing.
- penagwin 8y agoIn either case, it's likely harder to bribe or blackmail a police officer you found at random vs you know has a criminal record. (Not stating any political ideas, just following through with the logic of this discussion)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]