4 ms·

I never once implied they shouldn't be accountable, to be honest I don't think you read my post at all.

by Guthur 6y ago

crooked-v 6y ago
Recording police only 'backs them into a corner' if they're doing something wrong in the first place.
- junon 6y ago
  And privacy only matters if you have something to hide, right?
  - croon 6y ago
    Do you expect the same privacy at work as you do at home?
    - junon 6y ago
      You missed the point.
  - tokai 6y ago
    Police work is a public matter. They have no right for privacy in the execution of their job.
    - accounted 6y ago
      But you dont have a right to everyone else's business. Police frequently deal with people in their worst, and yet some feel so entitled to seeing these situations they have nothing to do with as though it were just a drama on Netflix. Example: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=281471 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=28147... The mother of the affected was telling people to go away, but they were so desperate to push their own agenda they ignored it. The BWC videos are on YouTube.
      - mschuster91 6y ago
        I agree that this is a problem, and it could be solved by a legal requirement - spreading of the material is illegal if it is done for degrading the subject of police action, and "traffickers" (i.e. "laugh of the day" video aggregators) are held liable for redistributing such content.
- KSteffensen 6y ago
  Not arguing against holding public law enformcement accountable, but in a society where everyone sues everyone at the drop of a hat it's very easy to do something reasonable in the context that nevertheless opens you up for potentially expensive legal consequences. I can understand why people get jumpy when they are being filmed, even if they aren't doing anything obviously wrong.
gjm11 6y ago
How can they be held accountable if people can't record what they do? For mostly-good reasons, in any court case judges and juries will tend to believe what a police officer tells them happened. So in any situation where a police officer and an ordinary citizen are one-on-one, if the ordinary citizen thinks the police officer is, or might be, acting wrongly then recording the events may be their only hope of getting justice if that happens. If there are multiple police officers and one civilian, you might hope that one police officer would report on another's misdeeds. Unfortunately, there's an awful lot of reason to think that that doesn't generally happen, and that what actually happens is that one police officer backs up another against civilians, even if they have to lie to do it. A police officer interacting with a private citizen is (supposed to be) acting on behalf of The People, to uphold The Law. What possible reason could there be not to record what they do in that capacity?

I never once implied they shouldn't be accountable, to be honest I don't think you read my post at all.

by Guthur 6y ago

I never once implied they shouldn't be accountable, to be honest I don't think you read my post at all.

crooked-v 6y ago

Recording police only 'backs them into a corner' if they're doing something wrong in the first place.

junon 6y ago
And privacy only matters if you have something to hide, right?
- croon 6y ago
  Do you expect the same privacy at work as you do at home?
  - junon 6y ago
    You missed the point.
- tokai 6y ago
  Police work is a public matter. They have no right for privacy in the execution of their job.
  - accounted 6y ago
    But you dont have a right to everyone else's business. Police frequently deal with people in their worst, and yet some feel so entitled to seeing these situations they have nothing to do with as though it were just a drama on Netflix. Example: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=281471 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=28147... The mother of the affected was telling people to go away, but they were so desperate to push their own agenda they ignored it. The BWC videos are on YouTube.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      I agree that this is a problem, and it could be solved by a legal requirement - spreading of the material is illegal if it is done for degrading the subject of police action, and "traffickers" (i.e. "laugh of the day" video aggregators) are held liable for redistributing such content.
KSteffensen 6y ago
Not arguing against holding public law enformcement accountable, but in a society where everyone sues everyone at the drop of a hat it's very easy to do something reasonable in the context that nevertheless opens you up for potentially expensive legal consequences. I can understand why people get jumpy when they are being filmed, even if they aren't doing anything obviously wrong.

gjm11 6y ago

How can they be held accountable if people can't record what they do? For mostly-good reasons, in any court case judges and juries will tend to believe what a police officer tells them happened. So in any situation where a police officer and an ordinary citizen are one-on-one, if the ordinary citizen thinks the police officer is, or might be, acting wrongly then recording the events may be their only hope of getting justice if that happens. If there are multiple police officers and one civilian, you might hope that one police officer would report on another's misdeeds. Unfortunately, there's an awful lot of reason to think that that doesn't generally happen, and that what actually happens is that one police officer backs up another against civilians, even if they have to lie to do it. A police officer interacting with a private citizen is (supposed to be) acting on behalf of The People, to uphold The Law. What possible reason could there be not to record what they do in that capacity?