4 ms·
To echo the previous reply, it's a ridiculous stance to defend absolving of documentation of their presence when all these situations involved taxpayer money. W
by fishtacos 3y ago
To echo the previous reply, it's a ridiculous stance to defend absolving of documentation of their presence when all these situations involved taxpayer money. Whether it's an officer, a congressman,Trump under subpoena, or a random drunk ... if they are being charged with something, they are in the public record. That public record includes public documentation of where they were taken, why, and sufficient documentation to allow both the public to be informed and for intervention in case of abuse of power.
Otherwise, we don't live in a functional democracy. This is a good decision. It's sad the PD is appealing it, but not unexpected.
- tzs 3y agoPeople often go to police stations for reasons other than being charged with something.
- koolba 3y ago> That public record includes public documentation of where they were taken, why, and sufficient documentation to allow both the public to be informed and for intervention in case of abuse of power. The problem for the specific case of being charged with something, or even a step before when someone is brought in for questioning, is enough to tarnish the person's reputation for life. If someone is brought in for questioning on suspicion of spousal battery, rape, or kiddie porn, that stink is not going to subside even if the officers or prosecutors later admit to being completely wrong.
- fishtacos 3y agoThat's a socio-cultural issue, not something related to what the law requires because it's the just thing to do. Otherwise, we'd have no knowledge of anything. We fought so hard (US-specific) for the FOIA and that barely even works. Crawling backwards into a decades of state and police corruption isn't the answer. I get what you're saying. There is an imbalance of power between the common citizen and state. Wanting transparency instead of the alternative because of abuse of power is precisely why this should be the norm.
- barbazoo 3y ago> if they are being charged with something, they are in the public record. That public record includes public documentation of where they were taken, why, and sufficient documentation to allow both the public to be informed and for intervention in case of abuse of power. > Otherwise, we don't live in a functional democracy. I agree with all of that but I wonder if this has anything to do with living in a democracy.
- seadan83 3y agoWithout those protections people can be disappeared or put in jail for no reason (perhaps to prevent their attendance somewhere else). It gets to the heart of habeais corpus
- fishtacos 3y agoExactly - we need transparency so the public does not feel threatened by unknowns, has trust in general governance, has trust in the economic system, political system, criminal system... Democratic secular republics haven't been around for very long. Lest we forget, given how short our lifetime spans, nothing is written for us. We create history as we live it. Trying our best doesn't seem to cut it so far, but I'll take it over any alternative.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoYou can get arrested without being charged with something though.
- fishtacos 3y agoYet what? It's still public record, like anything should be when charged by the state. Transparency is key. Otherwise, we live in an Orwellian quasi-something.
- JohnFen 3y agoBeing arrested, even if it you were innocent and it doesn't lead to a trial or conviction, has very real and harmful consequences to you in the US. So, it seems that things are Orwellian either way.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- angus-prune 3y agoMost western democracies dont publicise arrests and mugshots like the US. Most of these countries are more free and have better functioning democracies than the USA. In fact, many coutries would consider publicising every minor arrest as an imposition on personal freedom and a massive overstep by the government. I do agree that police should be filmable in almost all circumstances.