PsiChick: taurusowner: PsiChick: If enough people with mohawks are spraying silly string at people, and I see someone with a mohawk reach into their pocket, I'm just gonna assume it's silly string. Because at some point, you have to either use statistics to make an educated guess, or end up hurt\dead\arrested on false pretenses\having your crap stolen\otherwise victimized.Except you're not doing that. You're using cherry picked stories from the media that show a unrealistic and disproportionate amount of corrupt cops because that's what draws viewers. There are roughly 1.1 million police in the US. You're really me that with your keen mind for statistics, you have seen real data showing most of them are corrupt? No the occasional Youtube video or sensational news report don't count.If you want to just hate cops, that's fine. But don't start claiming it's because you made a reasoned judgement based on statistic unless you're willing to show those statistics.Since it's one of the least reported things cops do...Tell you what, though--you go ahead and tot up the number of examples. There's not that many, right? Shouldn't be, oh, easily in the millions, right? After all, there's only so many police officers...
ottebx: Regarding the officer being able to turn off the video in places where a reasonable expectation of photo/video privacy can be expected, allow them to turn it off, but while it is off, keep audio capture running. Do not allow audio to be turned off.
LeGnome: As a law enforcement officer, you do not have a right to privacy in the execution of your duties. That is all.
CruiserTwelve: LeGnome: As a law enforcement officer, you do not have a right to privacy in the execution of your duties. That is all.Is a private conversation with a co-worker or supervisor considered "in the execution of your duties?" Do the people you're talking to have an expectation of privacy that should be respected? How about if you're in a restaurant and a couple cops sit down in the next booth to have lunch and you know they're recording everything within earshot, including your conversation? Would you be comfortable with that?As the article states, this issue isn't as simple as it might seem. Recording every contact the police have creates lots of issues and concerns both from the perspective of the police and from the public. It creates privacy concerns as well as legal concerns.
demaL-demaL-yeH: When you're on the job, you're on the job. When you're in public, you're in public.
CruiserTwelve: demaL-demaL-yeH: When you're on the job, you're on the job. When you're in public, you're in public.So you don't mind if a government employee tapes your private conversations, even incidentally, if they occur in public?
CruiserTwelve: LeGnome: As a law enforcement officer, you do not have a right to privacy in the execution of your duties. That is all.Is a private conversation with a co-worker or supervisor considered "in the execution of your duties?"
Theaetetus: As suggested above, let the cop turn the camera off, and, should anything that occurs during that time period be used in a prosecution, the jury should be instructed to infer that something either incriminating was done by the officer or something exculpatory occurred by a defendant.
If you like these links, you'll love
The next best thing to UltraFark
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: May 27 2018 22:08:53
Runtime: 0.355 sec (355 ms)