So if they put cameras on the cops vest, what happens when a cop eats a bad burrito and has to go to the can? Can he turn it off? What if his joker coworkers get the bad burrito video and put it on youtube?
What if it's a female cop? She needs her privacy.
They should be able to turn it off, but if they can it limits the camera's use, IMO.
So if they put cameras on the cops vest, what happens when a cop eats a bad burrito and has to go to the can? Can he turn it off? What if his joker coworkers get the bad burrito video and put it on youtube?
What if it's a female cop? She needs her privacy.
They should be able to turn it off, but if they can it limits the camera's use, IMO.
Not everything can be solved through tech. The answer here is social - it needs to become a principle that without the camera, the testimony becomes suspect.
So if they put cameras on the cops vest, what happens when a cop eats a bad burrito and has to go to the can? Can he turn it off? What if his joker coworkers get the bad burrito video and put it on youtube?
What if it's a female cop? She needs her privacy.
They should be able to turn it off, but if they can it limits the camera's use, IMO.
The main point of the camera would be to assist in investigations for, or against the officer. An officer turning off the camera would just cause him to have to explain WHY the camera was turned off.
+11
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
It would be even better if the camera communicated its status through the digital radio like the vehicle computers do so dispatch could remind the officer to turn the camera back on.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
So if they put cameras on the cops vest, what happens when a cop eats a bad burrito and has to go to the can? Can he turn it off? What if his joker coworkers get the bad burrito video and put it on youtube?
What if it's a female cop? She needs her privacy.
They should be able to turn it off, but if they can it limits the camera's use, IMO.
If an officer went out and had a normal shift with no complaints being filed, then there is absolute no reason the footage needs to be saved or reviewed by anyone. Keep it for a week, then wipe it without looking at it. That is how a lot of jail house footage is used.
So if they put cameras on the cops vest, what happens when a cop eats a bad burrito and has to go to the can? Can he turn it off? What if his joker coworkers get the bad burrito video and put it on youtube?
What if it's a female cop? She needs her privacy.
They should be able to turn it off, but if they can it limits the camera's use, IMO.
i believe that in the places where cops do where cameras, they turn them on when responding to an incident or when they stop/question people. they aren't on constantly, only when they interact with the public. this could be seen as limiting their effectiveness, but they've still been shown to have a massively positive effect on the the behaviour of officers, as well as protecting them from trumped up claims of abuse.
EDIT: also, even if the cameras were on 100% of the time you're specific problem could be solved by giving control of the cameras to dispatch. the officers radios in that they're taking a bathroom break and need their camera off, radio operator turns it off and waits to be hear back(can question if its taking a while). any issues with inappropriate footage will either be accidental(officer not radio-ing in) or will have a clear source that will allow for disciplinary action to be take.
so yeah, you're problem isn't a problem. certainly not one that should stand in the way of better policing.
So if they put cameras on the cops vest, what happens when a cop eats a bad burrito and has to go to the can? Can he turn it off? What if his joker coworkers get the bad burrito video and put it on youtube?
What if it's a female cop? She needs her privacy.
They should be able to turn it off, but if they can it limits the camera's use, IMO.
i believe that in the places where cops do where cameras, they turn them on when responding to an incident or when they stop/question people. they aren't on constantly, only when they interact with the public. this could be seen as limiting their effectiveness, but they've still been shown to have a massively positive effect on the the behaviour of officers, as well as protecting them from trumped up claims of abuse.
EDIT: also, even if the cameras were on 100% of the time you're specific problem could be solved by giving control of the cameras to dispatch. the officers radios in that they're taking a bathroom break and need their camera off, radio operator turns it off and waits to be hear back(can question if its taking a while). any issues with inappropriate footage will either be accidental(officer not radio-ing in) or will have a clear source that will allow for disciplinary action to be take.
so yeah, you're problem isn't a problem. certainly not one that should stand in the way of better policing.
Even simpler - simply edit/black out the problem moments when a tape needs to be released or submitted to a judge while providing a judge with an unedited copy for review in case there's any question of what's been removed.
So if they put cameras on the cops vest, what happens when a cop eats a bad burrito and has to go to the can? Can he turn it off? What if his joker coworkers get the bad burrito video and put it on youtube?
What if it's a female cop? She needs her privacy.
They should be able to turn it off, but if they can it limits the camera's use, IMO.
i believe that in the places where cops do where cameras, they turn them on when responding to an incident or when they stop/question people. they aren't on constantly, only when they interact with the public. this could be seen as limiting their effectiveness, but they've still been shown to have a massively positive effect on the the behaviour of officers, as well as protecting them from trumped up claims of abuse.
EDIT: also, even if the cameras were on 100% of the time you're specific problem could be solved by giving control of the cameras to dispatch. the officers radios in that they're taking a bathroom break and need their camera off, radio operator turns it off and waits to be hear back(can question if its taking a while). any issues with inappropriate footage will either be accidental(officer not radio-ing in) or will have a clear source that will allow for disciplinary action to be take.
so yeah, you're problem isn't a problem. certainly not one that should stand in the way of better policing.
Even simpler - simply edit/black out the problem moments when a tape needs to be released or submitted to a judge while providing a judge with an unedited copy for review in case there's any question of what's been removed.
well if footage needs to be taken obviously only the portion relevant to the incident/case will be released, but i think Dipstick's issue was with embarrassing footage being leaked or used maliciously. something that is easily prevented.
So if they put cameras on the cops vest, what happens when a cop eats a bad burrito and has to go to the can? Can he turn it off? What if his joker coworkers get the bad burrito video and put it on youtube?
What if it's a female cop? She needs her privacy.
They should be able to turn it off, but if they can it limits the camera's use, IMO.
i believe that in the places where cops do where cameras, they turn them on when responding to an incident or when they stop/question people. they aren't on constantly, only when they interact with the public. this could be seen as limiting their effectiveness, but they've still been shown to have a massively positive effect on the the behaviour of officers, as well as protecting them from trumped up claims of abuse.
EDIT: also, even if the cameras were on 100% of the time you're specific problem could be solved by giving control of the cameras to dispatch. the officers radios in that they're taking a bathroom break and need their camera off, radio operator turns it off and waits to be hear back(can question if its taking a while). any issues with inappropriate footage will either be accidental(officer not radio-ing in) or will have a clear source that will allow for disciplinary action to be take.
so yeah, you're problem isn't a problem. certainly not one that should stand in the way of better policing.
Even simpler - simply edit/black out the problem moments when a tape needs to be released or submitted to a judge while providing a judge with an unedited copy for review in case there's any question of what's been removed.
well if footage needs to be taken obviously only the portion relevant to the incident/case will be released, but i think Dipstick's issue was with embarrassing footage being leaked or used maliciously. something that is easily prevented.
Yeah, we can't bitch about TSA using patdowns as masturbation material but then think it's ok for cops having to be recorded going to the bathroom. That's a bit of a double standard. The call into dispatch thing is a pretty solid way of solving the issue.
And before anyone asks, yes, that is something some people get off to.
So if they put cameras on the cops vest, what happens when a cop eats a bad burrito and has to go to the can? Can he turn it off? What if his joker coworkers get the bad burrito video and put it on youtube?
What if it's a female cop? She needs her privacy.
They should be able to turn it off, but if they can it limits the camera's use, IMO.
i believe that in the places where cops do where cameras, they turn them on when responding to an incident or when they stop/question people. they aren't on constantly, only when they interact with the public. this could be seen as limiting their effectiveness, but they've still been shown to have a massively positive effect on the the behaviour of officers, as well as protecting them from trumped up claims of abuse.
EDIT: also, even if the cameras were on 100% of the time you're specific problem could be solved by giving control of the cameras to dispatch. the officers radios in that they're taking a bathroom break and need their camera off, radio operator turns it off and waits to be hear back(can question if its taking a while). any issues with inappropriate footage will either be accidental(officer not radio-ing in) or will have a clear source that will allow for disciplinary action to be take.
so yeah, you're problem isn't a problem. certainly not one that should stand in the way of better policing.
Even simpler - simply edit/black out the problem moments when a tape needs to be released or submitted to a judge while providing a judge with an unedited copy for review in case there's any question of what's been removed.
well if footage needs to be taken obviously only the portion relevant to the incident/case will be released, but i think Dipstick's issue was with embarrassing footage being leaked or used maliciously. something that is easily prevented.
Yeah, we can't bitch about TSA using patdowns as masturbation material but then think it's ok for cops having to be recorded going to the bathroom. That's a bit of a double standard. The call into dispatch thing is a pretty solid way of solving the issue.
And before anyone asks, yes, that is something some people get off to.
That's not really the same. Losing your life on a plane isn't nearly as common as death by police officer.
The way that sousveillance cameras have operated in places that have tried them (like Rialto, California) is that they are running 100% of the time the officer is on shift, but they're only saving to a 30-second "buffer" until you activate the camera to start saving an interaction. Essentially, you click record when you start interacting with the public, but the buffer actually records what happened 30 seconds before you decided to hit the button to record it, and that gets saved too, so the video notes what happened to cause you decide to start recording. It's the basically the same kind of buffering that lets you go "Xbox, record that" when you're on a Xbox One, basically.
"But, couldn't a cop just wait until he's 30 seconds into a hostile interaction with someone, and then hit record to cover his own ass?"
Sure, but that in and of itself will raise questions, as will opting not to hit record at all. Like, people keep bringing up lost footage, failures to record, tampering with recordings, etc. as if those are reasons not to engage in police sousveillance when in fact those issues simply make incidents more damning for the officers when they do happen. They're actually arguments in favor of sousveillance, not against it.
Edit: To clarify, Taser's Axon on-body camera, which is the kind most police departments which are adopting these devices are using, has a 30 second buffer that only saves information when the officer clicks record. So the expectation should still be that an officer has the camera turned on 100% of their time while on shift, even while taking a shit, because the video in the buffer while they take a shit will be cleared in 30 seconds anyway unless the officer themselves opts to record it for whatever reason.
Friend at work reminding me this whole mess is a media thing bringing attention to the attention-seeking liberal crowd. He also reminds me I should be worried about the welfare of the cop (Darren Wilson) who is being unfairly judged prior to trial. Then he points out everything discrediting Mike Brown and the witnessess are proven as fact.
He cannot comprehend his double standard and seems convinced the real victim, when all is said and done, will be officer Darren Wilson.
So if they put cameras on the cops vest, what happens when a cop eats a bad burrito and has to go to the can? Can he turn it off? What if his joker coworkers get the bad burrito video and put it on youtube?
What if it's a female cop? She needs her privacy.
They should be able to turn it off, but if they can it limits the camera's use, IMO.
What... what does being a female cop have to do with needing privacy? Am I supposed to be more okay with dingalongs being recorded than vajayjays?
So if they put cameras on the cops vest, what happens when a cop eats a bad burrito and has to go to the can? Can he turn it off? What if his joker coworkers get the bad burrito video and put it on youtube?
What if it's a female cop? She needs her privacy.
They should be able to turn it off, but if they can it limits the camera's use, IMO.
i believe that in the places where cops do where cameras, they turn them on when responding to an incident or when they stop/question people. they aren't on constantly, only when they interact with the public. this could be seen as limiting their effectiveness, but they've still been shown to have a massively positive effect on the the behaviour of officers, as well as protecting them from trumped up claims of abuse.
EDIT: also, even if the cameras were on 100% of the time you're specific problem could be solved by giving control of the cameras to dispatch. the officers radios in that they're taking a bathroom break and need their camera off, radio operator turns it off and waits to be hear back(can question if its taking a while). any issues with inappropriate footage will either be accidental(officer not radio-ing in) or will have a clear source that will allow for disciplinary action to be take.
so yeah, you're problem isn't a problem. certainly not one that should stand in the way of better policing.
Even simpler - simply edit/black out the problem moments when a tape needs to be released or submitted to a judge while providing a judge with an unedited copy for review in case there's any question of what's been removed.
well if footage needs to be taken obviously only the portion relevant to the incident/case will be released, but i think Dipstick's issue was with embarrassing footage being leaked or used maliciously. something that is easily prevented.
Yeah, we can't bitch about TSA using patdowns as masturbation material but then think it's ok for cops having to be recorded going to the bathroom. That's a bit of a double standard. The call into dispatch thing is a pretty solid way of solving the issue.
And before anyone asks, yes, that is something some people get off to.
That's not really the same. Losing your life on a plane isn't nearly as common as death by police officer.
No, but fucked up privacy invasions are still fucked up privacy invasions. Just because you're a cop doesn't mean you deserve to be recorded taking a shit. We shouldn't be dehumanizing them just to make us feel better.
I'm kinda confused how you wear a camara and film your own genitals while using the bathroom. A camara aimed at your junk isn't going to work well for recording interactions with other people.
You would get footage of stall walls.
But I don't see why they can't just turn them off, and get very little support when they do that while stopping someone.
Are you people even reading what I'm saying or reading about how this actual technology operates or are you just making up stuff to get outraged about?
Are you people even reading what I'm saying or reading about how this actual technology operates or are you just making up stuff to get outraged about?
Why, when I have a 1 square cm chip I'm my phone that will record about 60 hours of video and cost $30 is that how these work?
Can you refer to any thing that failing to record things has be a significant contributing factor is a cop being penalized?
Are you people even reading what I'm saying or reading about how this actual technology operates or are you just making up stuff to get outraged about?
Why, when I have a 1 square cm chip I'm my phone that will record about 60 hours of video and cost $30 is that how these work?
Can you refer to any thing that failing to record things has be a significant contributing factor is a cop being penalized?
Because police officers don't take kindly to you holding a phone up at them, especially if they're trying to handcuff you at the same time.
Also yes. In this thread. And the general policing thread. Links about # complaints against police falling precipitously after the implementation of cameras.
Are you people even reading what I'm saying or reading about how this actual technology operates or are you just making up stuff to get outraged about?
I hear that Mike Brown had a police camera in his bloodstream.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
wut
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Where on body are these cameras placed anyway?
In any case, it seems like any gender is more likely to have an audio recording of them using the toilet and a video capture of either a wall next to the toilet or the door.
Where on body are these cameras placed anyway?
In any case, it seems like any gender is more likely to have an audio recording of them using the toilet and a video capture of either a wall next to the toilet or the door.
It's generally kind of centered in the chest or mounted onthe side of sunglasses (like model Pony mentioned); there are others that sit on the shoulder too.
iTunesIsEvil on
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Generally, shoulder mounted cameras are only used with body armor. Your normal clothes are not tight enough to keep them from flopping all over the place.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Ah, so they are like Google glasses on steroids, thanks for the info.
No, not really. They don't have anything like that feature set. The ones that mount on glasses just record what you look at. That's it. The one that mounts to the front of the shirt is typically built into a radio microphone and records what is in front of the officer's body orientation, but not necessarily what they are looking at.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Ah, so they are like Google glasses on steroids, thanks for the info.
No, not really. They don't have anything like that feature set. The ones that mount on glasses just record what you look at. That's it. The one that mounts to the front of the shirt is typically built into a radio microphone and records what is in front of the officer's body orientation, but not necessarily what they are looking at.
No, no, I get that they lack the feature set, I just meant how they look.
Are you people even reading what I'm saying or reading about how this actual technology operates or are you just making up stuff to get outraged about?
Why, when I have a 1 square cm chip I'm my phone that will record about 60 hours of video and cost $30 is that how these work?
Can you refer to any thing that failing to record things has be a significant contributing factor is a cop being penalized?
Because police officers don't take kindly to you holding a phone up at them, especially if they're trying to handcuff you at the same time.
Also yes. In this thread. And the general policing thread. Links about # complaints against police falling precipitously after the implementation of cameras.
You totally missed my point. There is no technical reason to give police the power to control what gets recorded and what does not. When who the fuck knows what led up to an engagement, and one huge issue is race and prejudice effecting decisions, and in every one of these threads people defend police because of the constant stressors related to their job, why not record the context?
Because it would make cops look bad. Being lazy(maybe a bit unfair), running lights for the hell of it, profiling, harassing people who won't complain, all the revealing interactions with other cops.
Like the Ferguson riot stuff. It would probably be useful in these types of crowd scenes to have a couple dozen, time stamped videos of the whole thing. Not just 30 seconds leafing up to cops cracking heads.
As the only public servants that we routinely ask to go around armed in our cities, I don't think it's unreasonable that they lose their right to privacy when they're on the clock.
If lawmakers have to do their job in front of C-Span, cops can do theirs wearing a camera.
Are you people even reading what I'm saying or reading about how this actual technology operates or are you just making up stuff to get outraged about?
Why, when I have a 1 square cm chip I'm my phone that will record about 60 hours of video and cost $30 is that how these work?
Can you refer to any thing that failing to record things has be a significant contributing factor is a cop being penalized?
Because police officers don't take kindly to you holding a phone up at them, especially if they're trying to handcuff you at the same time.
Also yes. In this thread. And the general policing thread. Links about # complaints against police falling precipitously after the implementation of cameras.
You totally missed my point. There is no technical reason to give police the power to control what gets recorded and what does not. When who the fuck knows what led up to an engagement, and one huge issue is race and prejudice effecting decisions, and in every one of these threads people defend police because of the constant stressors related to their job, why not record the context?
Because it would make cops look bad. Being lazy(maybe a bit unfair), running lights for the hell of it, profiling, harassing people who won't complain, all the revealing interactions with other cops.
Like the Ferguson riot stuff. It would probably be useful in these types of crowd scenes to have a couple dozen, time stamped videos of the whole thing. Not just 30 seconds leafing up to cops cracking heads.
Their Union will state otherwise. ANY Union would state otherwise.
Filming audio or video of someone in the bathroom is an HR disaster. Whether you like it or not, police officers are entitled to some privacy in the fucking bathroom, just like every other job.
Now is this ONE thing reason enough to keep cameras off of a police uniform? No, because it's an easy situation to resolve by giving some level of control of recording.
+1
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Seriously if this is going to become the general policing thread I don't see why separate threads are necessary anymore
Just caught a glimpse on CNN that the governor is pulling out the national guard? Does this mean things are calming down (but institutional racism will still ensure that browns killer walks and the racist police department will not face any significant pressure to reform or scale back its militant culture once the spotlight is gone)
Posts
Naw see, this means they are totally all about the hot new trends.
Yay! Furguson! Woo!
What if it's a female cop? She needs her privacy.
They should be able to turn it off, but if they can it limits the camera's use, IMO.
http://gnomophobia.com
Not everything can be solved through tech. The answer here is social - it needs to become a principle that without the camera, the testimony becomes suspect.
The main point of the camera would be to assist in investigations for, or against the officer. An officer turning off the camera would just cause him to have to explain WHY the camera was turned off.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
If an officer went out and had a normal shift with no complaints being filed, then there is absolute no reason the footage needs to be saved or reviewed by anyone. Keep it for a week, then wipe it without looking at it. That is how a lot of jail house footage is used.
i believe that in the places where cops do where cameras, they turn them on when responding to an incident or when they stop/question people. they aren't on constantly, only when they interact with the public. this could be seen as limiting their effectiveness, but they've still been shown to have a massively positive effect on the the behaviour of officers, as well as protecting them from trumped up claims of abuse.
EDIT: also, even if the cameras were on 100% of the time you're specific problem could be solved by giving control of the cameras to dispatch. the officers radios in that they're taking a bathroom break and need their camera off, radio operator turns it off and waits to be hear back(can question if its taking a while). any issues with inappropriate footage will either be accidental(officer not radio-ing in) or will have a clear source that will allow for disciplinary action to be take.
so yeah, you're problem isn't a problem. certainly not one that should stand in the way of better policing.
Even simpler - simply edit/black out the problem moments when a tape needs to be released or submitted to a judge while providing a judge with an unedited copy for review in case there's any question of what's been removed.
well if footage needs to be taken obviously only the portion relevant to the incident/case will be released, but i think Dipstick's issue was with embarrassing footage being leaked or used maliciously. something that is easily prevented.
Yeah, we can't bitch about TSA using patdowns as masturbation material but then think it's ok for cops having to be recorded going to the bathroom. That's a bit of a double standard. The call into dispatch thing is a pretty solid way of solving the issue.
And before anyone asks, yes, that is something some people get off to.
That's not really the same. Losing your life on a plane isn't nearly as common as death by police officer.
"But, couldn't a cop just wait until he's 30 seconds into a hostile interaction with someone, and then hit record to cover his own ass?"
Sure, but that in and of itself will raise questions, as will opting not to hit record at all. Like, people keep bringing up lost footage, failures to record, tampering with recordings, etc. as if those are reasons not to engage in police sousveillance when in fact those issues simply make incidents more damning for the officers when they do happen. They're actually arguments in favor of sousveillance, not against it.
Edit: To clarify, Taser's Axon on-body camera, which is the kind most police departments which are adopting these devices are using, has a 30 second buffer that only saves information when the officer clicks record. So the expectation should still be that an officer has the camera turned on 100% of their time while on shift, even while taking a shit, because the video in the buffer while they take a shit will be cleared in 30 seconds anyway unless the officer themselves opts to record it for whatever reason.
He cannot comprehend his double standard and seems convinced the real victim, when all is said and done, will be officer Darren Wilson.
What... what does being a female cop have to do with needing privacy? Am I supposed to be more okay with dingalongs being recorded than vajayjays?
No, but fucked up privacy invasions are still fucked up privacy invasions. Just because you're a cop doesn't mean you deserve to be recorded taking a shit. We shouldn't be dehumanizing them just to make us feel better.
2. There are all manner of ways, both human and technological, to potentially control a camera's on/off state.
An interesting breakdown of some of the police hardware being used in Ferguson, commented on by a former Marine:
http://www.thenation.com/article/181315/catalog-ferguson-police-weaponry
You would get footage of stall walls.
But I don't see why they can't just turn them off, and get very little support when they do that while stopping someone.
Are you people even reading what I'm saying or reading about how this actual technology operates or are you just making up stuff to get outraged about?
I don't... really see the problem?
Also: Twitter is (simply via the nature of the platform) way better about Ferguson-related stuff than Facebook:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/19/how-facebook-and-twitter-control-what-you-see-about-ferguson/
Why, when I have a 1 square cm chip I'm my phone that will record about 60 hours of video and cost $30 is that how these work?
Can you refer to any thing that failing to record things has be a significant contributing factor is a cop being penalized?
Because police officers don't take kindly to you holding a phone up at them, especially if they're trying to handcuff you at the same time.
Also yes. In this thread. And the general policing thread. Links about # complaints against police falling precipitously after the implementation of cameras.
I hear that Mike Brown had a police camera in his bloodstream.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
In any case, it seems like any gender is more likely to have an audio recording of them using the toilet and a video capture of either a wall next to the toilet or the door.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
It's generally kind of centered in the chest or mounted onthe side of sunglasses (like model Pony mentioned); there are others that sit on the shoulder too.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
No, not really. They don't have anything like that feature set. The ones that mount on glasses just record what you look at. That's it. The one that mounts to the front of the shirt is typically built into a radio microphone and records what is in front of the officer's body orientation, but not necessarily what they are looking at.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Edit: Speaking of recording:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/st-louis-county-police-tactical-team-under-fire/html_7fb666cb-31bd-5d52-a64c-5ad86a9d685e.html
Record of the police with a gopro by an "embedded reporter".
like
really?
Yea, that's kind of the point?
Also, that isn't how they work?
You totally missed my point. There is no technical reason to give police the power to control what gets recorded and what does not. When who the fuck knows what led up to an engagement, and one huge issue is race and prejudice effecting decisions, and in every one of these threads people defend police because of the constant stressors related to their job, why not record the context?
Because it would make cops look bad. Being lazy(maybe a bit unfair), running lights for the hell of it, profiling, harassing people who won't complain, all the revealing interactions with other cops.
Like the Ferguson riot stuff. It would probably be useful in these types of crowd scenes to have a couple dozen, time stamped videos of the whole thing. Not just 30 seconds leafing up to cops cracking heads.
If lawmakers have to do their job in front of C-Span, cops can do theirs wearing a camera.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Their Union will state otherwise. ANY Union would state otherwise.
Filming audio or video of someone in the bathroom is an HR disaster. Whether you like it or not, police officers are entitled to some privacy in the fucking bathroom, just like every other job.
Now is this ONE thing reason enough to keep cameras off of a police uniform? No, because it's an easy situation to resolve by giving some level of control of recording.
Just caught a glimpse on CNN that the governor is pulling out the national guard? Does this mean things are calming down (but institutional racism will still ensure that browns killer walks and the racist police department will not face any significant pressure to reform or scale back its militant culture once the spotlight is gone)
I'm just cynical
NNID: Hakkekage