So like on the one hand body cameras gave us this footage and we should definitely use them.
On the other hand, growing up on a body camera would have been... weird.
On gorros third hand kids grow up perpetually on camera nowadays anyways so maybe that's no big deal. I just don't know how I feel about the always on thing.
You'd be surprised how often cop reports are total fabrications.
A couple of recent cases had body cam footage of an officer planting evidence in an alley, walk out of the alley and back to "search" and "discover" the evidence. Another case had officers sitting in the car getting their story straight so they both had the same fabricated story.
What I'm saying here is more body cams.
Also penalties for not having them on or "losing" the footage as well as firm guideline for when it is appropriate to have them tunred off. Personally im in favour of an "always on" over which the officer has no control but that comes with a few issues in terms of privacy for toilet breaks and witness security and such.
Simple. Any time tye camera isn't on then the cop's testimony is inadmissable. Any conflicting statements are assumed true.
Cops will quickly find ways to always be recording.
So like on the one hand body cameras gave us this footage and we should definitely use them.
On the other hand, growing up on a body camera would have been... weird.
On gorros third hand kids grow up perpetually on camera nowadays anyways so maybe that's no big deal. I just don't know how I feel about the always on thing.
Cop's cameras should always be on if they are on duty, not when they are at home hanging out with their kids. Obviously they should also be able to turn them off on breaks and bathroom breaks. If they "forget" to turn them back on after breaks, this should be looked on as deeply suspicious by juries if they do anything bad while the camera is off, especially if there are several police there who also "forgot" to turn their cameras on.
I don't know if it's just a TV and Movie thing but don't they have to ask permission to begin a pursuit especially in a built up area? The answer could be to allow the cameras to be controlled remotely, so they radio in to turn it off and in that way it's approved by a second, accountable figure with a recorded reason why.
I don't know if it's just a TV and Movie thing but don't they have to ask permission to begin a pursuit especially in a built up area? The answer could be to allow the cameras to be controlled remotely, so they radio in to turn it off and in that way it's approved by a second, accountable figure with a recorded reason why.
Most radio systems are being switched over to digital nowadays, I'm sure there's a way to tie in the camera to the officers radio so that a signal can be sent over the air either upon dispatch or otherwise.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I can understand the downsides of body cams from a work health point of view. Would I like someone filming me at all times to make sure I didn't fuck up? No.
But the US police pushed the situation to the point where body cams are needed. Nobody else made them act in such a consistently brutal and unjust manner across a huge variety of police departments
I can understand the downsides of body cams from a work health point of view. Would I like someone filming me at all times to make sure I didn't fuck up? No.
But the US police pushed the situation to the point where body cams are needed. Nobody else made them act in such a consistently brutal and unjust manner across a huge variety of police departments
The nature of their broad, sweeping authority and potential for harm as a result of misusing it makes oversight uniquely necessary. Worst case scenario at a retail store is that some shit gets stolen and the company loses some money. Worst case scenario if a cop decides THEY ARE THE LAW is people die or lives are ruined.
+25
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Well, it's also lack of centralized authority, which essentially by design ramps up corruption on a few fronts.
They really should massively centralise and regulate US police departments
There are 3,142 counties and county-equivalents in the US, and 17,985 police departments. That's ridiculous. You know how many police forces are in the UK? 43
There should be at an absolute maximum a police force per county in the US and ideally a Police Force could cover multiple counties. For example, my local police force is the South Yorkshire Police Force and it covers an area responsible for 1.28 million people, spread across four regional commands, and it's nowhere near the biggest in the country. If the US had that kind of police structure it could actually standardise its processes and training, properly overview police activity and force a reduction in local autonomy which I'm afraid to say seems to lead to authoritarian and brutal police tactics.
I can understand the downsides of body cams from a work health point of view. Would I like someone filming me at all times to make sure I didn't fuck up? No.
But the US police pushed the situation to the point where body cams are needed. Nobody else made them act in such a consistently brutal and unjust manner across a huge variety of police departments
I just don't get this sentiment. Bankers, cashiers, and pharmacists all have to deal with this on the daily yet none these professions have no trouble attracting applicants.
Its work. People are going to be scrutinizing your actions while you're there. It's the nature of work.
LoisLane on
+26
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I can understand the downsides of body cams from a work health point of view. Would I like someone filming me at all times to make sure I didn't fuck up? No.
I got some bad news for ya.
US workers are so monitored that businesses have taken to observing their social media habits.
You are filmed, watched, logged, and tracked at just about every job in America.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I can understand the downsides of body cams from a work health point of view. Would I like someone filming me at all times to make sure I didn't fuck up? No.
But the US police pushed the situation to the point where body cams are needed. Nobody else made them act in such a consistently brutal and unjust manner across a huge variety of police departments
I just don't get this sentiment. Bankers, cashiers, and pharmacists all have to deal with this on the daily yet none these professions have no trouble attracting applicants.
Its work. People are going to be scrutinizing your actions while you're there. It's the nature of work.
And all those industries have to deal with it because there was a time that they didn't, and employees stole the fuck out of everything. Retail stores don't have cameras in the stock room just by default, they have them because employees have stolen from them forever. Those employees make those cameras necessary, just like cops make body cameras necessary.
It is true that a blood test, unlike a breath test, may be administered to a person who is unconscious (perhaps as a result of a crash) or who is unable to do what is needed to take a breath test due to profound intoxication or injuries. But we have no reason to believe that such situations are common in drunk-driving arrests, and when they arise, the police may apply for a warrant if need be.
Which gives more credit to the actual situation of being unable to refuse, which is all too common with consent ethics in hospitals and is completely ignored as a possibility by Utah Code 41-6a-520. I am profoundly disappointed by the way that the broad waiver in (1)(a) completely misses half the reason consent exists and fails to uphold the responsibility of the legal system to ensure a person is competent to give consent.
Or just the decision, which straight up says:
"The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident
to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests."
Want blood? Get a warrant. It's even worse in this case as they didn't have an arrest. Hell they didn't even have suspicion. This man was a victim, there was no reason to suspect he was impaired.
It's not like getting a warrant is tough. Most cops just hate being inconvenienced even in an extremely minor way.
I don't see why they would have got a warrant to draw blood from a victim of an accident who was not driving erratically or at fault. If this is grounds for a warrant, then the warrant system is worthless.
This case seems like the tip of the iceberg. I imagine they'd done this a lot but with less "innocent" victims than this nurse. A victim with a criminal record, or who lives on the wrong side of the tracks, or is the wrong race would probably not be able to complain.
I can understand the downsides of body cams from a work health point of view. Would I like someone filming me at all times to make sure I didn't fuck up? No.
But the US police pushed the situation to the point where body cams are needed. Nobody else made them act in such a consistently brutal and unjust manner across a huge variety of police departments
I just don't get this sentiment. Bankers, cashiers, and pharmacists all have to deal with this on the daily yet none these professions have no trouble attracting applicants.
Its work. People are going to be scrutinizing your actions while you're there. It's the nature of work.
And all those industries have to deal with it because there was a time that they didn't, and employees stole the fuck out of everything. Retail stores don't have cameras in the stock room just by default, they have them because employees have stolen from them forever. Those employees make those cameras necessary, just like cops make body cameras necessary.
There's actually a lot of research that shows the best way to minimize employee theft is to have decent wages, benefits, and the type of management that doesn't kill morale and encourage high turnover, but cameras are a lot cheaper.
I would not be shocked if the same dynamic occurs in law enforcement. Better pay, more training, and greater professionalism would encourage a better workforce, but cameras are cheaper.
I can understand the downsides of body cams from a work health point of view. Would I like someone filming me at all times to make sure I didn't fuck up? No.
But the US police pushed the situation to the point where body cams are needed. Nobody else made them act in such a consistently brutal and unjust manner across a huge variety of police departments
I just don't get this sentiment. Bankers, cashiers, and pharmacists all have to deal with this on the daily yet none these professions have no trouble attracting applicants.
Its work. People are going to be scrutinizing your actions while you're there. It's the nature of work.
And all those industries have to deal with it because there was a time that they didn't, and employees stole the fuck out of everything. Retail stores don't have cameras in the stock room just by default, they have them because employees have stolen from them forever. Those employees make those cameras necessary, just like cops make body cameras necessary.
There's actually a lot of research that shows the best way to minimize employee theft is to have decent wages, benefits, and the type of management that doesn't kill morale and encourage high turnover, but cameras are a lot cheaper.
I would not be shocked if the same dynamic occurs in law enforcement. Better pay, more training, and greater professionalism would encourage a better workforce, but cameras are cheaper.
In many cases we're talking about high school kids who don't expect to stay at this job more than a year if that. It's just not realistic to expect everyone in the work force to be mature and feel genuine loyalty to their employer, even if management is doing everything right.
Body cams are not just a 'keep police in check' thing.
They also protect the officers themselves from offenders bringing false claims against them. There has already been more than one case I am aware where the body cam proved the officer was justified in arresting someone. Body cams are not a one or the other thing, they protect us from cops that abuse the law and from actual criminals bringing false.
Which means there is no reason not to have police wear body cams. The only reason I can think of is for police to continue to abuse their powers.
Edited for crazy hossible grammar. Just look at the below quote
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Body cams are not just a 'keep police in check' thing.
They also protect their the officers themselves from offenders bringing false claims against them. There has already been more than one case I am aware from where the body cam proved the officer was proved that he was justified in arresting someone. Body cams are not a one or the other thing, they protect us from cops that abuse the law and from actual criminals from bringing false.
Which means there is no reason not to have police wear body cams. The only reason I can think of is for police to continue to abuse their powers.
I know several former corrections and police officers and some current leo's as well.
I don't share a lot of what I hear from them here because it would sound like it borders on parody but we absolutely fucking need cameras on all of them, right now.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I can understand the downsides of body cams from a work health point of view. Would I like someone filming me at all times to make sure I didn't fuck up? No.
But the US police pushed the situation to the point where body cams are needed. Nobody else made them act in such a consistently brutal and unjust manner across a huge variety of police departments
I just don't get this sentiment. Bankers, cashiers, and pharmacists all have to deal with this on the daily yet none these professions have no trouble attracting applicants.
Its work. People are going to be scrutinizing your actions while you're there. It's the nature of work.
And all those industries have to deal with it because there was a time that they didn't, and employees stole the fuck out of everything. Retail stores don't have cameras in the stock room just by default, they have them because employees have stolen from them forever. Those employees make those cameras necessary, just like cops make body cameras necessary.
There's actually a lot of research that shows the best way to minimize employee theft is to have decent wages, benefits, and the type of management that doesn't kill morale and encourage high turnover, but cameras are a lot cheaper.
I would not be shocked if the same dynamic occurs in law enforcement. Better pay, more training, and greater professionalism would encourage a better workforce, but cameras are cheaper.
In many cases we're talking about high school kids who don't expect to stay at this job more than a year if that. It's just not realistic to expect everyone in the work force to be mature and feel genuine loyalty to their employer, even if management is doing everything right.
And yet, there is still an improvement that trends with better pay and conditions. And that doesn't even get into whether the teen worker stereotype actually represents the actual workforce or is just a nice deflection to justify shitty pay and conditions. Wal-Mart - i.e. the dominant player in the industry - has an older and heavily minority workforce.
Either way, the example still holds for LEO jobs since America is not policed by bored teens.
I can understand the downsides of body cams from a work health point of view. Would I like someone filming me at all times to make sure I didn't fuck up? No.
But the US police pushed the situation to the point where body cams are needed. Nobody else made them act in such a consistently brutal and unjust manner across a huge variety of police departments
I just don't get this sentiment. Bankers, cashiers, and pharmacists all have to deal with this on the daily yet none these professions have no trouble attracting applicants.
Its work. People are going to be scrutinizing your actions while you're there. It's the nature of work.
And all those industries have to deal with it because there was a time that they didn't, and employees stole the fuck out of everything. Retail stores don't have cameras in the stock room just by default, they have them because employees have stolen from them forever. Those employees make those cameras necessary, just like cops make body cameras necessary.
I get that. What I don't get is why cops are acting like this is the worst burden in the world while people in softer industries have been just fine. The only reasonable objection I've ever heard was the bathroom break/phone call thing which just makes me question why cops don't have scheduled bathroom breaks. A pee break per hour, more if required, where they have to keep their guns off along with their badges. Phone calls can wait till later, unless its an emergency. I'm not allowed to casually talk on my phone and all my jobs have been way less necessary/important than a cops.
Body cams are not just a 'keep police in check' thing.
They also protect the officers themselves from offenders bringing false claims against them. There has already been more than one case I am aware where the body cam proved the officer was justified in arresting someone. Body cams are not a one or the other thing, they protect us from cops that abuse the law and from actual criminals bringing false.
Which means there is no reason not to have police wear body cams. The only reason I can think of is for police to continue to abuse their powers.
Edited for crazy hossible grammar. Just look at the below quote
Not to mentioned it also protects cops from corrupt cops. There is the obvious issue of the actions of corrupt cops moving the community's relationship to the local police into an antagonistic one. Not to mentioned that rat fuckers tend to have no qualms about shitting on associates if it advances their own goals.
Also, maybe if we paid LEOs more, we'd get applicants who are interested in the job for reasons other than the power to bully people with impunity.
Better pay more PLUS more training, particularly in the realms of conflict de-escalation and dealing with people who are mentally ill or disabled or deaf (and thus cannot possibly follow police orders in a timely or predictable fashion.)
I can understand the downsides of body cams from a work health point of view. Would I like someone filming me at all times to make sure I didn't fuck up? No.
But the US police pushed the situation to the point where body cams are needed. Nobody else made them act in such a consistently brutal and unjust manner across a huge variety of police departments
I just don't get this sentiment. Bankers, cashiers, and pharmacists all have to deal with this on the daily yet none these professions have no trouble attracting applicants.
Its work. People are going to be scrutinizing your actions while you're there. It's the nature of work.
And all those industries have to deal with it because there was a time that they didn't, and employees stole the fuck out of everything. Retail stores don't have cameras in the stock room just by default, they have them because employees have stolen from them forever. Those employees make those cameras necessary, just like cops make body cameras necessary.
I get that. What I don't get is why cops are acting like this is the worst burden in the world while people in softer industries have been just fine. The only reasonable objection I've ever heard was the bathroom break/phone call thing which just makes me question why cops don't have scheduled bathroom breaks. A pee break per hour, more if required, where they have to keep their guns off along with their badges. Phone calls can wait till later, unless its an emergency. I'm not allowed to casually talk on my phone and all my jobs have been way less necessary/important than a cops.
Almost everyone dislikes the idea of additional rules and restrictions being placed on them which they haven't had to deal with before. Nobody ever volunteers for additional surveillance on themselves, because they believe that it's only other people who are the problem. They themselves should of course just be taken at their word. It's simply human nature - whether the surveillance is justified or not is irrelevant to their reactions.
It's a little different when the people who are insisting they don't need additional oversight are the people who are supposed to be in charge of overseeing the public at large.
It's a little different when the people who are insisting they don't need additional oversight are the people who are supposed to be in charge of overseeing the public at large.
It's a little different when the people who are insisting they don't need additional oversight are the people who are supposed to be in charge of overseeing the public at large.
Who watches the watchmen?
Is there even a medical license board equivalent for LEOs? It seems like we have less civilian oversight over a license to kill than a license to prescribe 800mg motrim. And require less training for the privledge.
I'm ok with the penalty for screwing up being less than a civilian. We extend medical professionals the same courtesy, the difference being it is actually enforced, and one can't simply get a job in the next town over. It's less important that they go to jail than it is that they are prevented from doing it again.
This instance of a cop pressuring a nurse to lose her fucking license, because he's not operating under the same level risk, really underscores the disparity, and it really pisses me off.
ArbitraryDescriptor on
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It's a little different when the people who are insisting they don't need additional oversight are the people who are supposed to be in charge of overseeing the public at large.
Who watches the watchmen?
I tried to a few months ago but the dialogue was atrocious
It's a little different when the people who are insisting they don't need additional oversight are the people who are supposed to be in charge of overseeing the public at large.
Different from our perspective, yes. To them, it's a job. Their motivations are the same as anybody else's.
When your job involves having a gun and using it, you better be ready for the consequences of that. Acting surprised because people ask why you keep shooting things on a hairtrigger is basically victim blaming.
It is true that a blood test, unlike a breath test, may be administered to a person who is unconscious (perhaps as a result of a crash) or who is unable to do what is needed to take a breath test due to profound intoxication or injuries. But we have no reason to believe that such situations are common in drunk-driving arrests, and when they arise, the police may apply for a warrant if need be.
Which gives more credit to the actual situation of being unable to refuse, which is all too common with consent ethics in hospitals and is completely ignored as a possibility by Utah Code 41-6a-520. I am profoundly disappointed by the way that the broad waiver in (1)(a) completely misses half the reason consent exists and fails to uphold the responsibility of the legal system to ensure a person is competent to give consent.
Or just the decision, which straight up says:
"The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident
to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests."
Want blood? Get a warrant. It's even worse in this case as they didn't have an arrest. Hell they didn't even have suspicion. This man was a victim, there was no reason to suspect he was impaired.
Warrantless breath tests are a cheat code called Implied Consent. If you have a license, you have already consented to a degree of warrantless sobriety testing. You may generally revoke said consent by surrendering your license, but of course you can't drive away afterwards, and you can still be arrested, at which point they will just get the warrant.
Posts
On the other hand, growing up on a body camera would have been... weird.
On gorros third hand kids grow up perpetually on camera nowadays anyways so maybe that's no big deal. I just don't know how I feel about the always on thing.
Simple. Any time tye camera isn't on then the cop's testimony is inadmissable. Any conflicting statements are assumed true.
Cops will quickly find ways to always be recording.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Cop's cameras should always be on if they are on duty, not when they are at home hanging out with their kids. Obviously they should also be able to turn them off on breaks and bathroom breaks. If they "forget" to turn them back on after breaks, this should be looked on as deeply suspicious by juries if they do anything bad while the camera is off, especially if there are several police there who also "forgot" to turn their cameras on.
Most radio systems are being switched over to digital nowadays, I'm sure there's a way to tie in the camera to the officers radio so that a signal can be sent over the air either upon dispatch or otherwise.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
But the US police pushed the situation to the point where body cams are needed. Nobody else made them act in such a consistently brutal and unjust manner across a huge variety of police departments
The nature of their broad, sweeping authority and potential for harm as a result of misusing it makes oversight uniquely necessary. Worst case scenario at a retail store is that some shit gets stolen and the company loses some money. Worst case scenario if a cop decides THEY ARE THE LAW is people die or lives are ruined.
There are 3,142 counties and county-equivalents in the US, and 17,985 police departments. That's ridiculous. You know how many police forces are in the UK? 43
There should be at an absolute maximum a police force per county in the US and ideally a Police Force could cover multiple counties. For example, my local police force is the South Yorkshire Police Force and it covers an area responsible for 1.28 million people, spread across four regional commands, and it's nowhere near the biggest in the country. If the US had that kind of police structure it could actually standardise its processes and training, properly overview police activity and force a reduction in local autonomy which I'm afraid to say seems to lead to authoritarian and brutal police tactics.
Small Town bullshit is both a huge waste of money and a the farm system for corrupt dickholes on the state and federal level.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I just don't get this sentiment. Bankers, cashiers, and pharmacists all have to deal with this on the daily yet none these professions have no trouble attracting applicants.
Its work. People are going to be scrutinizing your actions while you're there. It's the nature of work.
I got some bad news for ya.
US workers are so monitored that businesses have taken to observing their social media habits.
You are filmed, watched, logged, and tracked at just about every job in America.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The local police tending to be popular with the public makes it very hard to fix systemic problems.
That was 2016 though, prior to November
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And all those industries have to deal with it because there was a time that they didn't, and employees stole the fuck out of everything. Retail stores don't have cameras in the stock room just by default, they have them because employees have stolen from them forever. Those employees make those cameras necessary, just like cops make body cameras necessary.
Or just the decision, which straight up says:
"The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident
to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests."
Want blood? Get a warrant. It's even worse in this case as they didn't have an arrest. Hell they didn't even have suspicion. This man was a victim, there was no reason to suspect he was impaired.
I don't see why they would have got a warrant to draw blood from a victim of an accident who was not driving erratically or at fault. If this is grounds for a warrant, then the warrant system is worthless.
This case seems like the tip of the iceberg. I imagine they'd done this a lot but with less "innocent" victims than this nurse. A victim with a criminal record, or who lives on the wrong side of the tracks, or is the wrong race would probably not be able to complain.
There's actually a lot of research that shows the best way to minimize employee theft is to have decent wages, benefits, and the type of management that doesn't kill morale and encourage high turnover, but cameras are a lot cheaper.
I would not be shocked if the same dynamic occurs in law enforcement. Better pay, more training, and greater professionalism would encourage a better workforce, but cameras are cheaper.
In many cases we're talking about high school kids who don't expect to stay at this job more than a year if that. It's just not realistic to expect everyone in the work force to be mature and feel genuine loyalty to their employer, even if management is doing everything right.
They also protect the officers themselves from offenders bringing false claims against them. There has already been more than one case I am aware where the body cam proved the officer was justified in arresting someone. Body cams are not a one or the other thing, they protect us from cops that abuse the law and from actual criminals bringing false.
Which means there is no reason not to have police wear body cams. The only reason I can think of is for police to continue to abuse their powers.
Edited for crazy hossible grammar. Just look at the below quote
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I know several former corrections and police officers and some current leo's as well.
I don't share a lot of what I hear from them here because it would sound like it borders on parody but we absolutely fucking need cameras on all of them, right now.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
And yet, there is still an improvement that trends with better pay and conditions. And that doesn't even get into whether the teen worker stereotype actually represents the actual workforce or is just a nice deflection to justify shitty pay and conditions. Wal-Mart - i.e. the dominant player in the industry - has an older and heavily minority workforce.
Either way, the example still holds for LEO jobs since America is not policed by bored teens.
I get that. What I don't get is why cops are acting like this is the worst burden in the world while people in softer industries have been just fine. The only reasonable objection I've ever heard was the bathroom break/phone call thing which just makes me question why cops don't have scheduled bathroom breaks. A pee break per hour, more if required, where they have to keep their guns off along with their badges. Phone calls can wait till later, unless its an emergency. I'm not allowed to casually talk on my phone and all my jobs have been way less necessary/important than a cops.
Not to mentioned it also protects cops from corrupt cops. There is the obvious issue of the actions of corrupt cops moving the community's relationship to the local police into an antagonistic one. Not to mentioned that rat fuckers tend to have no qualms about shitting on associates if it advances their own goals.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Better pay more PLUS more training, particularly in the realms of conflict de-escalation and dealing with people who are mentally ill or disabled or deaf (and thus cannot possibly follow police orders in a timely or predictable fashion.)
Yes you do
Almost everyone dislikes the idea of additional rules and restrictions being placed on them which they haven't had to deal with before. Nobody ever volunteers for additional surveillance on themselves, because they believe that it's only other people who are the problem. They themselves should of course just be taken at their word. It's simply human nature - whether the surveillance is justified or not is irrelevant to their reactions.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Who watches the watchmen?
Is there even a medical license board equivalent for LEOs? It seems like we have less civilian oversight over a license to kill than a license to prescribe 800mg motrim. And require less training for the privledge.
I'm ok with the penalty for screwing up being less than a civilian. We extend medical professionals the same courtesy, the difference being it is actually enforced, and one can't simply get a job in the next town over. It's less important that they go to jail than it is that they are prevented from doing it again.
This instance of a cop pressuring a nurse to lose her fucking license, because he's not operating under the same level risk, really underscores the disparity, and it really pisses me off.
I tried to a few months ago but the dialogue was atrocious
Different from our perspective, yes. To them, it's a job. Their motivations are the same as anybody else's.
Warrantless breath tests are a cheat code called Implied Consent. If you have a license, you have already consented to a degree of warrantless sobriety testing. You may generally revoke said consent by surrendering your license, but of course you can't drive away afterwards, and you can still be arrested, at which point they will just get the warrant.