5 ms·

"oops the records are gone. Can't rule based on absence of evidence." Individual rights are not applicable to gov entities. Gov entities can levy fines and app

"oops the records are gone. Can't rule based on absence of evidence." Individual rights are not applicable to gov entities. Gov entities can levy fines and apply criminal charges. You're comparing apples to oranges. Every time gov moves power away from the people they're doing it for the benefit of those in power. Not for you. Even if it works now it will be abused the second the current governance is replaced. NY, like most big cities, is already incredibly corrupt. If you believe adding more power on top is proper then you're playing football with people's lives.

giantg2 3y ago
What are they getting over the radio that can't be recorded in person? The people most likely to benefit from the recordings are the ones in contact. The recordings are a terrible small piece of information and are generally self-censored. Better of recording everything in person.
- HaZeust 3y ago
  ¿Por que no los dos? It NEVER hurts to know the radio-ins for scenes and if inaccurate information is given, if something unbecoming is shared to one officer by another, if there is conspiracy to participate in the blue wall of silence [1], and many more scenarios. Indeed, this information can transpire in court, but it shouldn't be the People's only avenue to RECEIVE such intel. If this were to be the case, the courts would have leverage to transparency, whereas the People should have both. You shouldn't NEED the court to start your search on proving damage from the State. You don't NEED to wait for a courthouse summons to know your rights were violated. If your prerequisites to be upset are explicitly the actions and behaviors that occur in judicial proceedings, then this country is far gone. If that's the one area you want to protect to the largest extent, then bad actors will use every other step before that one (including arrest) against you - and that's where radio comms come in. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence
  - giantg2 3y ago
    They use cell phones for the stuff they don't want people to hear. "If your prerequisites to be upset are explicitly the actions and behaviors that occur in judicial proceedings" Not sure where you're getting that from. As I stated before, in person recording should have more and better information. This does not require a court.
    - HaZeust 3y ago
      I think I mistook one comment by another person for yours and thought you brought up that belief that only recordings of police radio should be shared - on behalf of the people - in Court. My mistake!
HaZeust 3y ago
This. “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” ― Frederick Douglass
s1artibartfast 3y ago
You can't paint in black and white like that without a tool or metric for discerning good govt action from bad. Laws against murder "take power from the people" too. The question should always be what you, a person wants. Even abuse, assuming it happens is a tradeoff. Is it worth it? I usually think no, but it isn't something you can take an idealist all or nothing approach on.

giantg2 3y ago

What are they getting over the radio that can't be recorded in person? The people most likely to benefit from the recordings are the ones in contact. The recordings are a terrible small piece of information and are generally self-censored. Better of recording everything in person.

HaZeust 3y ago
¿Por que no los dos? It NEVER hurts to know the radio-ins for scenes and if inaccurate information is given, if something unbecoming is shared to one officer by another, if there is conspiracy to participate in the blue wall of silence [1], and many more scenarios. Indeed, this information can transpire in court, but it shouldn't be the People's only avenue to RECEIVE such intel. If this were to be the case, the courts would have leverage to transparency, whereas the People should have both. You shouldn't NEED the court to start your search on proving damage from the State. You don't NEED to wait for a courthouse summons to know your rights were violated. If your prerequisites to be upset are explicitly the actions and behaviors that occur in judicial proceedings, then this country is far gone. If that's the one area you want to protect to the largest extent, then bad actors will use every other step before that one (including arrest) against you - and that's where radio comms come in. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence
- giantg2 3y ago
  They use cell phones for the stuff they don't want people to hear. "If your prerequisites to be upset are explicitly the actions and behaviors that occur in judicial proceedings" Not sure where you're getting that from. As I stated before, in person recording should have more and better information. This does not require a court.
  - HaZeust 3y ago
    I think I mistook one comment by another person for yours and thought you brought up that belief that only recordings of police radio should be shared - on behalf of the people - in Court. My mistake!

HaZeust 3y ago

This. “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” ― Frederick Douglass

s1artibartfast 3y ago

You can't paint in black and white like that without a tool or metric for discerning good govt action from bad. Laws against murder "take power from the people" too. The question should always be what you, a person wants. Even abuse, assuming it happens is a tradeoff. Is it worth it? I usually think no, but it isn't something you can take an idealist all or nothing approach on.