|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think police would be less hesitant about body cameras if they were offered similar protections. Police should be freely allowed to conspire against and breach public trust with absolutely no legal recourse for the state to take when such evidence is uncovered. I thought the 'officers poop too' stuff was laughable, but you're actually loving insane.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:47 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You are arguing that the ubiquity and ease of tracking an individuals' shopping habits means that employees should accept highly intrusive monitoring by their employers without reservation or protection. I disagree, and I don't think your argument is relevant. But employees already do. The cameras are limited to the rooms they are working in because their work is limited to those rooms. Police roam around, thus they would need mobile cameras. But it's the same thing. quote:I already addressed that earlier. CVRs are only used for accident investigation. You could be on tape talking about how you can't wait to take the illegal Cuban rum in your luggage back to the apartment where you gently caress your boss' wife, and the NTSB won't include it in their report unless they believe it somehow contributed to the accident. I think police would be less hesitant about body cameras if they were offered similar protections. I'd be fine with that, if the people who decide when the "protections" are relevant are 100 percent unaffiliated with the police department.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
When did you stop beating your wife, Phone? You don't get to decide the relevance of my questions. Please limit your answer to the appropriate year/month/day format.A Fancy Bloke posted:How about this: they are public servants and thus should expect no privacy in pursuit of their duty? fosborb posted:Financial services call centers. Physical movement is badged, all calls are recorded and saved for 7 years by law, all screens are captured and network activity is logged, adherence to breaks, lunch, and work type are tracked, while entire departments (workforce management) are devoted to tracking real time adherence to set schedules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Has anyone actually argued for cop toilet shots? Why do you keep bringing that up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Again, the crucial difference here is that HR isn't allowed to monitor you when you are in the bathroom, or out to lunch, or if you step out to take a personal phone call on your cell. I don't have a problem with monitoring police while they are engaged in police work, but there needs to be a reasonable allowance for their personal privacy. Find the post where someone is arguing against a law that would allow police to shut off their body cams on break, or kindly shut up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:Has anyone actually argued for cop toilet shots? Why do you keep bringing that up? I think he's really into toilet fetishes. It's the only reasonable explanation since he can't manage to answer simple yes/no questions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, it's loving not. Cameras in some areas of your workplace are not the same thing as a camera that follows you at all times. Name me another industry that requires employees to wear a wire at all times between clock in and clock out, or drop the false equivalence. Tell you what, you explain to me the difference between a person actually wearing a camera in a retail setting vs someone who's on CCTV in literally every room that's not the restroom. Because from where I stand they're functionally the same thing: video proof you're doing your job. I'm amazed that you consistently defend the idea that the very police who have in this thread repeatedly demonstrated a wanton disregard for personal rights, up to and including multiple attempts to conceal and destroy video evidence of wrongdoing, should somehow be held less accountable than the guy who flips your burger at McDonald's, stocks your shelves at Wal-Mart, dispenses your controlled medication at Walgreens, or handles your money in a bank. I mean, what's it like having that kind of doublethink? How do you function in society?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
His refusal to answer my questions asking him if he's essentially a functional member of society can only make me assume that he shops wearing a paper bag over his head and only pays in cash because he's such a torch bearer for privacy in general. Or he's a worthless concern troll. Or he's a Freeman on the Land because my avatar doesn't have a gold, fringed border/frame.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
How about a sensor on the waist of a cops underwear and pants and another on their shoes. Whenever their pants and underwear are pulled to within 8 inches of their shoes the camera shuts off. If they want to shoot someone without evidence they are going to have to do it porky pig style. edit: Plus if we get cell phone vids of police misconduct they will look even worse with their pants around their ankles. Spoke Lee fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Oct 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Agreed, but this means that they have a right to not be under surveillance when not engaged in their duties, like when they're taking a poop. Sure, allow them to turn it off in those situations. All the more reason to punish the bad apples when they abuse their ability to turn it off when it shouldn't be. It's really not all that complicated and I'm sure you yourself can come up with reasonable solutions to all these problems you're seeing. The problem isn't a lack of possibilities but a lack of will to actually hold the police accountable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Spoke Lee posted:How about a sensor on the waist of a cops underwear and pants and another on their shoes. Whenever their pants and underwear are pulled to within 8 inches of their shoes the camera shuts off. If they want to shoot someone without evidence they are going to have to do it porky pig style. The brave soul who dispatches "thugs" while droppin' dooks in his pants to get all the action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:The brave soul who dispatches "thugs" while droppin' dooks in his pants to get all the action. You can tell whether or not he feared for his life by the amount of literal poo poo scared out of him!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
I'm arguing for literal cop poo poo cameras. Who knows what kind of evidence they are routinely using/destroying/tampering with in there. Plus like they tell you, if you're not guilty you have nothing to worry about, now bend over and let me see your rectum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
If cops can reduce their murder count by half then they can have their private toilet time back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Phone posted:His refusal to answer my questions asking him if he's essentially a functional member of society can only make me assume that he shops wearing a paper bag over his head and only pays in cash because he's such a torch bearer for privacy in general. I think he's refusing to answer your questions because they are stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
The only reason anyone is suggesting not letting the cops turn them off is because we're 100% sure that that ability will be abused. Find a way to make that abuse minimized, and then I'm all for it. I'd like to see, for instance, something like cams can only be used as evidence for already ongoing investigations so we're not just adding 24/7 surveillance to the things cops have the ability to do. Or that cams can only be introduced to either defend the officer against charges of brutality or by people who claim they've been victimized by the police, again to minimize the chance that cameras will just be used by the police to prosecute other crimes that went unnoticed the first time around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Devor posted:Find the post where someone is arguing against a law that would allow police to shut off their body cams on break, or kindly shut up. nm posted:Body and dash cams should be manditory and always on. chitoryu12 posted:The first thing opponents to always-on cameras give is "It'll record people in moments that shouldn't be recorded, and that is a Bad Thing." Grundulum posted:I'm in favor of always-on bodycams on police. Phone posted:His refusal to answer my questions asking him if he's essentially a functional member of society can only make me assume that he shops wearing a paper bag over his head and only pays in cash because he's such a torch bearer for privacy in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
So while we worry about the police and their right to privacy various police departments like the NYPD have been driving around in X-ray vans spying on everyone they go past and tapping phones at every chance they get. Privacy for the police, none for the citizens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
It's hard to abuse a spouse when you don't have one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:So while we worry about the police and their right to privacy various police departments like the NYPD have been driving around in X-ray vans spying on everyone they go past and tapping phones at every chance they get. Privacy for the police, none for the citizens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
The only time that comes into effect is when a police officer enters a private residence since the days you have no expectation of privacy any where else. Also again they police are already massively violating people's right to privacy right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:... Hmm, yes, clearly if someone says "Always-on bodycam" they mean at all times period with no exceptions. They probably also mean when the cop is off duty, like when he is at home having sex with his wife. Because that's a reasonable thing for you to take away from the discussion. You loving disingenuous poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Cops do have a high rate of spousal abuse, keeping the camera on at home would probably save a lot of lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Remember the no fly zone they put in when the riots happened? FBI Director James Comey admitted in testimony last week before the House Judiciary Committee that the agency conducted surveillance flights over mass protests against police brutality in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland over the past year, at the request of local police departments. Comey’s remarks confirmed an earlier Associated Press report revealing the FBI’s extensive use of secret flyovers throughout the country. The hearing itself, mislabeled as being dedicated to the “Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” was a further indication of the ability of government agencies like the FBI to carry out illegal mass surveillance against the American population with impunity. Comey contradicted himself at key points through his testimony, which the members of the Committee allowed to pass without comment. He absurdly claimed in his testimony that the FBI’s flyovers are not used for “mass surveillance,” but only to track specific individuals targeted by an investigation, despite the obvious fact that low-flying, camera-equipped aircraft are ideally suited to follow large numbers of people simultaneously over a wide area. As the ACLU noted recently on its website, new technologies that are now commercially available to police departments nationwide can monitor an area of 25 square miles from low-circling aircraft. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/10/26/fbis-o26.html Drones were the reason why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Cops begin carrying nunchucks to subdue suspects — in California, where nunchucks are illegal http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/cops-begin-carrying-nunchucks-to-subdue-suspects-in-california-where-nunchucks-are-illegal/ Since when should cops follow the law anyways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
It's hard to imagine how they could be more effective than just a regular baton. But if it means more dumb cops hitting themselves...
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Sweet. http://www.nydailynews.com/sc-high-...n=NYDailyNewsTwquote:A South Carolina sheriff's deputy attacked a high school student as classmates watched in horror, shocking footage revealed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
I'm sure he was in fear for his life or some such bullshit excuse right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq4BR5KHuqA&feature=youtu.be
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Off-duty Officer Patric Stanton fired shot during road rage incident in Golden Sunday, police say Recordings of the 911 call will not be released Monday, police say. So far, no charges are being filed. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...nday-police-say of course not, cops are the good ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Devor posted:Hmm, yes, clearly if someone says "Always-on bodycam" they mean at all times period with no exceptions. They probably also mean when the cop is off duty, like when he is at home having sex with his wife. Because that's a reasonable thing for you to take away from the discussion. He's very particular about the strict definition of words. Except "teenager"
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Hooded Reptile posted:Cops begin carrying nunchucks to subdue suspects — in California, where nunchucks are illegal The only way to stop a bad guy with nunchucks is a good guy with nunchucks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm sure he was in fear for his life or some such bullshit excuse right? She was 5'2" and sitting down, he was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MI7wPpbD_M
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:She was 5'2" and sitting down, he was this: a man deadlifting weights?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:a man deadlifting weights? The man lifting weights in the video is the cop in question. It is meant to demonstrate that he was sufficiently strong to not have to throw her on the ground in order to restrain her. Or maybe to demonstrate that he was roiding out, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:a man deadlifting weights? That's the cop. efb
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Who the gently caress is this bald police shill on CNN defending the deadlifter cop?  he is the loving worst
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:To be fair, COPS has editors and the bias of the show is EXTREMELY pro-law enforcement, so they aren't going to show unflattering things that may happen. I meant that COPS is already required to protect people's privacy, and when they can't get releases they use blurs to hide identity because they'd get hit with lawsuits if they didn't. It's fairly easy to write rules regarding when video can be released and what it can be used for, and already fits within existing law. Just say the tapes can't be reviewed unless someone dies or to defend against/prove charges of police brutality, and only evidence relevant to the investigation can be released, just like all other everything ever. Dead Reckoning posted:These are still examples of workplace cameras, not recorders attached to individual employees. It's the difference between traffic cameras and the FBI attaching a GPS tracker to your car. Haha what. Requiring a public servant who is armed and with authority to use lethal force as part of his job, to be monitored on-duty in order to protect the civil rights of himself and the public is not the same as the FBI tracking your every move for no reason. Anyone this paranoid about the nefarious government doing evil sinister things with their personal information about them isn't going to be applying to work for the government in the first place. It never fails to amaze me how the people sucking the most cop-authority dick get all  about the government. If you don't trust the government to monitor its own employees for abuse, why do you trust them with authority to shoot people?Don't give the government cameras, they might abuse their power. Give them guns instead and a presumption they're telling the truth when they kill someone with no witnesses. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Oct 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Kreg posted:The only way to stop a bad guy with nunchucks is a good guy with nunchucks? "Only a ninja can kill a ninja" -ninja 3: the domination
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:47 |
|
|
There's this weird response from anti-regulation activists, who argue that if you say...require on-duty body cameras, you must catch 100% of abuse for them to be valid. Then based in that flawed framework, they point out the insanities of their own demand, e.g. "You want to monitor every officer's bathroom visits????" when of course, that was never a requirement for the concept in question, just a strawman-extrapolation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 01:48
|
|
