3 ms·
This makes zero sense. If I have a traffic camera in my car or an action cam on my bicycle helmet, there is no fifth amendment right to suppress that evidence i
by mrandish 2y ago
This makes zero sense. If I have a traffic camera in my car or an action cam on my bicycle helmet, there is no fifth amendment right to suppress that evidence in court. So, what in the fifth amendment makes this any different for a law enforcement officer?
I'm actually generally sympathetic to law enforcement officers. Most (but not all) cops are good cops. And it's a hard job. But it should be a hard job. After all, law enforcement is granted an unprecedented, exclusive power no one else has, a monopoly on the legitimate use of violent force. With great power comes great responsibility (and accountability). Law enforcement officers are employees of the state (which represents the people). When "we the people" collectively hire a few individuals to exercise violent force on our behalf, it's reasonable that we also require digital accountability, including GPS, video and audio recording as a term of that employment.
- colechristensen 2y agoI’m not saying I agree but their argument seems to be that the body cameras being required to be running violates their 5th amendment rights. Your traffic camera was your choice to have running. Nobody required you to have one running. It’s not a good argument but not wildly surprising either.
- Loughla 2y agoIt is kind of surprising. I'm not being paid by public money. If I was, I would expect my communications to be public record, within established law. Why are police different? They are paid by public funds.
- mrandish 2y agoPolice are employees and the cameras running is a term of their employment. To me, it seems no different than a delivery truck driver having a traffic camera on in the truck being a term of their employment. No one is forcing them to be employed in this job and they don't have a "right" to arbitrarily dismiss reasonable conditions of employment (like "wear a uniform", etc) and, in effect, force their employer to keep employing them despite not fulfilling their employment contract.
- wmf 2y agoYeah, what worries me is not that some individual police don't want accountability, but the system doesn't want to make rules that would hold police accountable.
- adolph 2y agoPolice are [Union] employees . . .
- FireBeyond 2y agoGenerally, not at the Chief level. Similar in the Fire Service. Chief/Deputy Chief/Assistant Chiefs are generally not unionized, because they have labor responsibilities.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mrguyorama 2y agoSo are Ford assembly line workers, but they don't get to kill people and then withhold evidence from the record for some reason.
- anjel 2y agoBy the same logic then, those ceiling cameras pointed down at cashiers gotta go too.