3 ms·
I’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 came
by colechristensen 2y ago
I’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.