Dallas PD Uses Twitter To Announce Cop Firings

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dallas PD Uses Twitter To Announce Cop Firings

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday January 7, 2014 @03:00PM from the at-least-they're-not-talking-about-their-breakfast dept.

New submitter natarnsco writes "The Dallas, Texas police chief has used an unusual weapon in his arsenal to announce firings and other disciplinary measures in the Dallas police force: Twitter. 'Dallas Police Chief David O. Brown has fired or disciplined 27 officers and employees in the last year. And every time he brings down the hammer, he announces it on Facebook and Twitter, specifying exactly who the men and women are and what they did. On Dec. 30, it was five officers and a 911 call operator.' The article goes on to say, 'Chief Brown is, as far as we know, unique among police chiefs in his use of social media. "I'm unaware of anyone else doing this," says Lt. Max Geron, who handles media relations at the Dallas Police Department. "If we weren't the first, we were one of the first." We checked out the Twitter profiles of various departments around the country as well and couldn't find a similar situation. The social media posts aren't an official policy of the DPD, but rather a "push for transparency" initiative, in Lt. Geron's words. "[It comes from] a desire to be more transparent and to get our message out to the greater community," he says.'"

118 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Good PR by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2014-01-07 15:07 · Score: 1

Good PR stunt.

--
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
1. Re:Good PR by drater · 2014-01-07 15:10 · Score: 2
  
  Naw, just good.
2. Re: Good PR by AvitarX · 2014-01-07 16:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'd think good all around. When you live in the less savory parts of town, all you see is police abusing neighbors, and nobody caring. The residents know which cops misbehave, and don't see anybody getting consequences (somebody getting promoted or fired looks the same from your porch where all you know is you don't see them ). This is why when you're in the bad parts of town everybody hates the cops, even the law abiding citizens. This initiative hopefully allows people to see that those in charge do care.
  And yes, I am part of the problem, I support politics, and try to spread the word of abuse to colleagues, but I was not about to file actual complaints and get treated like that. As a white person icing with a white teacher, I had police protection rather than abuse even there (we would often complain about problems and have an officer stop by next day to talk about it, even though the far more upstanding black neighbors would complain for weeks and nobody so of care ).
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
3. Re: Good PR by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  As a white person icing with a white teacher
  Kids just keep coming up with weirder and weirder innuendo...
4. Re: Good PR by AvitarX · 2014-01-08 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, I noticed that too.
  Note to self, post via phone XOR drunk, both at once lead to gibberish. I'm surprised anyone got the gist of what I was saying when I read it this morning.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
5. Re: Good PR by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  I'm surprised anyone got the gist of what I was saying when I read it this morning.
  The icing part is the only thing I couldn't grok. What was that actually supposed to be anyway?
6. Re: Good PR by AvitarX · 2014-01-08 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Living I assume.
  The teacher part was also significant, because at first they just thought we were ghetto junkies, but the thought that an ostensibly upstanding (because well teacher and white) person complained gave them horror (you could see in their faces "oh shit, real citizens").
  It was a shame though, because there were a lot more upstanding (in every way) neighbors that the police pretty much ignored, and harassed their children. The good children too, not the hood rats across the street.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
The Thin Bottom Line by MarkvW · 2014-01-07 15:10 · Score: 1, Troll

This is what happens when you let the lawyers run the show.
1. Re:The Thin Bottom Line by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 15:33 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Care to elaborate?
  I once worked with a police union lawyer before. There are a lot of stupid cops out there, but there are equally a lot of cops who get steamrolled by their chief. For example, maybe the chief wants to reduce his budget. He'll lie about some conduct just so he can fire a cop, ruining that cops career. Or maybe the chief or some other cop wants to retaliate against another cop for being too honest, or maybe just for being female or gay; they'll lie about some behavior to get the other cop fired or disciplined. Insane stuff like this happens all the time, because a lot of cops enter the police force young, and they never grow up.
  If a cop truly did something wrong, then usually there'll be evidence of it. If there's evidence, a lawyer can't get the employee off. At best he can beg the review committee for mercy, but they're under no obligation to do so.
2. Re:The Thin Bottom Line by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 15:56 · Score: 0
  
  This is what happens when you let the lawyers run the show.
  I'm sorry, but if lawyers were running the show, the LAST thing one would expect would be more transparency.
3. Re:The Thin Bottom Line by Mashiki · 2014-01-07 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  Care to elaborate?
  The P&P Manual aka Policy and Procedures. Where the manual, isn't so much a book, but an entire encyclopedia. Ahh TPS, sitting at 14 volumes, each volume is 600+ pages.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
4. Re:The Thin Bottom Line by TheloniousToady · 2014-01-07 16:50 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sorry, but if lawyers were running the show, the LAST thing one would expect would be more transparency.
  Unless the lawyers happen to be running the show at a gentlemen's club. (Are you tipping?)
5. Re:The Thin Bottom Line by SacredNaCl · 2014-01-07 18:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Care to elaborate?
  I once worked with a police union lawyer before. There are a lot of stupid cops out there, but there are equally a lot of cops who get steamrolled by their chief. For example, maybe the chief wants to reduce his budget. He'll lie about some conduct just so he can fire a cop, ruining that cops career. Or maybe the chief or some other cop wants to retaliate against another cop for being too honest, or maybe just for being female or gay; they'll lie about some behavior to get the other cop fired or disciplined. Insane stuff like this happens all the time, because a lot of cops enter the police force young, and they never grow up.
  If a cop truly did something wrong, then usually there'll be evidence of it. If there's evidence, a lawyer can't get the employee off. At best he can beg the review committee for mercy, but they're under no obligation to do so.
  I have witnessed a good officer let go for what I would consider an unjust cause. The officer in question didn't get with the new commanders special forces background, and wasn't hip to the SWAT style tactics that he brought with him. He was the kind of officer that used conversation to defuse dangerous situations rather than force. He was decorated twice for doing just that, defusing two hostage standoffs at great personal risk. The new boss took a minor complaint and went hog wild with it even though he knew there was never any racial animus in the officer. The police officer had no trouble finding another job with another department, but they let him go just before he became eligible for a better pension at retirement.
  
  --
  Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
6. Re:The Thin Bottom Line by Bite+The+Pillow · 2014-01-07 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  Let's just pontificate based purely on our own experience. Surely everyone has had an average life, average education, and average interaction with police. Therefore, we are on the same ground, and grant your experience the same as fable, and the same as our full of shit neighbor.
  Or, perhaps your experience is less or more than normal.
  Either way, no one should draw any conclusion on what you say, it serves at best as a data point.
7. Re:The Thin Bottom Line by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  Usually it's the opposite: an officer does something that is flat out wrong - even criminal - and they are allowed to resign so they can move to another agency. I am ok with outing them publicly and getting them off the streets and out of law enforcement.
  I am not a LEO, but I work closely with them and have seen the passing of bad cops from agency to agency for decades. This may put a stop to it, and if it does, GOOD.
8. Re:The Thin Bottom Line by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  What you've just described if horrifying. If that's really how cops treat each other, then normal people should be very afraid of the police.
9. Re:The Thin Bottom Line by nbauman · 2014-01-08 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  I worked for a union employment lawyer (no police), so I have a certain sympathy for the employee and I know how important it is to get both sides. Furthermore, I had a neighbor who was a cop who (story too long to give here) demonstrated enough courage, cool-headedness and restraint in a shootout to make me really admire him.
  However, in New York City, I must say that many and probably most of the cops are pigs -- they violate the law, arrest innocent people, and occasionally kill them. When they do, they almost always get off. It's hard to think of a cop who has been prosecuted, and harder to think of a cop who has gone to jail. (The only exception is drug crimes, and felonies like rape.)
  New York City just settled most of the lawsuits coming out of the Republican convention http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/nyregion/12video.html for something like $15 million. That's because they arrested people (many of whom had nothing to do with the demonstrations in the first place), charged them with crimes they never committed, and charged them with further felonies of resisting arrest which they didn't do either, because they knew they could force most people into falsely pleading guilty rather than go through the expensive, time-consuming and risky legal challenges.
  The cases were thrown out, because the defendants discovered videotapes, by bystanders and by cops themselves, that demonstrated beyond a doubt that the cops had committed perjury in their sworn statements. These cops were never prosecuted for perjury.
  These abuses just go on and on in New York City. During the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, inspector Anthony Bolognia fired the pepper spray heard round the world. He wasn't fired, much less prosecuted for what was legally an assault, and an abuse of government power, against a person who was exercising her First Amendment rights.
  There were also cases of cops who killed civilians, without justification, and weren't prosecuted.
  There are also internal disciplinary proceedings which seem to be a sham.
  I realize that the cops on the beat are being pushed to do it by their officers. But who else would get off on an excuse like that? If you're being forced to violate the law, you should quit your job and go public.
  Yes, you're going to say that most cops are good cops, and these are only a small percentage. (I worked for employment lawyers, and that's what they would have said.) That's not true. The overwhelming majority of cops are like that, in the public record and in my personal experience. The honest cops are a small minority, I'd guess maybe 1%, 10% tops.
  During the Knapp Commission hearings, they got a cop to testify in exchange for a plea bargain. He said that an honest cop is a guy who brings his own sandwich for lunch. (Rather than getting a free meal in a restaurant.) Back in those days, there were very few cops who brought their own sandwiches for lunch.
10. Re: The Thin Bottom Line by Mabhatter · 2014-01-08 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be pretty sure the lawyers are screaming right now. As much as we like to beat up cops, "public shaming" like this is borderline illegal for an employer to do, and certainly grounds for a civil lawsuit, no matter how justified the firing.
  Like others have said, a chief you didn't get along with is going to put ONE SIDE if the story of your firing on a public website... That's just open to be nasty and political. This is a lawyer nightmare (or easy paycheck!)
11. Re:The Thin Bottom Line by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  If a cop truly did something wrong, then usually there'll be evidence of it. If there's evidence, a lawyer can't get the employee off. At best he can beg the review committee for mercy, but they're under no obligation to do so.
  I wish. Around these parts, the police union is strong enough that it's virtually impossible to fire an officer for misconduct.
  Officer accumulates enough drunk-driving convictions that he's required to have an ignition interlock? Can't fire him for either the convictions or the resulting inability to drive a police car -- the arbitration panel ordered him reinstated with back pay.
  Officer stalks a woman and eventually exposes himself to her, getting convicted for indecent exposure? Only reason the firing stuck is that while investigating, they found he'd used the background-check system to get her phone number.
  Off-duty officer shoots an unarmed man in the back? Can't fire him -- the prosecutor tried for "attempted murder" rather than "assault", and when the jury found him not guilty, the lack of a conviction means he can't be fired.
  Officer beats an unresisting suspect, hog-ties him, and lets him suffocate? Took eight years and a federal civil-rights investigation to fire the officer, and the suspect's death certificate still lists "excited delirium" as the cause of death -- and this despite surveillance video showing that the officer was clearly at fault.
Aren't these private websites? by BringsApples · 2014-01-07 15:10 · Score: 1

I'm not a member of either and do not get his tweets or posts, so how is this a 'push for transparency'?

--
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
1. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 15:15 · Score: 2
  
  There's no state run media to publish in you know. What's the difference between going to the privately owned news paper or news station? And although I haven't checked, I'd be willing to bet that it's on the Dallas police website too.
  
  I'm not a member of either and do not get his tweets or posts
  Things aren't done only to serve you, you know. Many more do use those sites and most of those would not have otherwise known.
  
  But by all means, please continue trying to karma whore by posting nonsensical objections based solely on the fact that it mentions social media sites that are unpopular here.
2. Re:Aren't these private websites? by mysidia · 2014-01-07 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a member of either and do not get his tweets or posts, so how is this a 'push for transparency'?
  Not everyone subscribes to local newspapers, either; however, posting a public notice in one of them, to television, or other privately owned publicly accessible media, still counts as public notice, for example: for the purpose of substituted service (Service of process by publication, when an individual cannot be located) --- certain kinds of legal proceedings requiring that Public notice be given -- public notice before issuing broadcast or liquor licenses, public notices of important government meetings where the public is required to be able to comment upon, public notices for foreclosures, estate actions, probate.
3. Re:Aren't these private websites? by TrollstonButterbeans · 2014-01-07 15:38 · Score: 2
  
  It doesn't matter if it is a "push for transparency", just whether or not it sounds like it is in a TV commercial or political pamphlet when he runs for whatever office he clearly has in mind.
  
  --
  Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
4. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 15:38 · Score: 0
  
  There's no state run media to publish in you know.
  
  OK, so you state the problem and then go off on a tangent for two or three paragraphs.
  In reality, there is an elite-run media, but they pretend to be competing. It'd be more honest to just have a state run news service - at least it'd have some democratic oversight.
5. Re:Aren't these private websites? by koan · 2014-01-07 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  How is it not?
  
  --
  "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
6. Re:Aren't these private websites? by gandhi_2 · 2014-01-07 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  As opposed to something like Pravda?
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
7. Re:Aren't these private websites? by BringsApples · 2014-01-07 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  Not everyone subscribes to local newspapers...
  You don't have to subscribe to get a newspaper. Anyone can simply (and anonymously) purchase a newspaper. Facebook, twitter, whatever, it's the same as if he posted a bulletin at the local Freemason lodge, and they made copies and posted it at every lodge in the world. If you're not a member, you don't get that 'news'.
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
8. Re:Aren't these private websites? by BringsApples · 2014-01-07 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  How is it not?
  Slashdot is a "public" website, in that anyone can come and see all of the posts. But suppose that they changed it. Suppose that when you went to slashdot.org, you are immediately confronted with a login page (just like facebook), and you have to have credentials in order to see the posts. That's how not.
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
9. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 16:28 · Score: 0
  
  Suppose that the newspaper editor put the announcement on page 17 in size 3 font (which you have to buy, BTW). Suppose that the town crier has a cold and can't shout the message.
  
  There is no such things as transparency by your paranoid definition.
10. Re:Aren't these private websites? by BringsApples · 2014-01-07 16:34 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  AC vagina!
  
  Public = walk right in, (maybe pay some money) see everything
  Private = Prove membership (then see "Public" above)
  
  Oh fuck I'm arguing with a 14-yo AC again, oh lawd I need to go to sleep...
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
11. Re:Aren't these private websites? by gman003 · 2014-01-07 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  And you can view Twitter without an account (maybe Facebook? I think you could the last time I used it, nearly two years ago).
12. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Known+Nutter · 2014-01-07 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have to subscribe to get a newspaper. Anyone can simply (and anonymously) purchase a newspaper. Facebook, twitter, whatever, it's the same as if he posted a bulletin at the local Freemason lodge, and they made copies and posted it at every lodge in the world. If you're not a member, you don't get that 'news'.
  I'm not a member of twitter. I'm not a member of Facebook. Not that it matters, but I'm not a member of the Freemasons, either.
  I got the news.
  Like it or not, and I'm pretty sure I don't, social media is (has?) becoming as ubiquitous as a newspaper and allows a police department (or anyone else) a voice that traditional media can pick up on, as has happened in this story. So, I wouldn't agree that a police chief posting to the department's official twitter and facebook is "the same as" a posting in a Freemason lodge bulletin board.
  
  --
  Beware of the Leopard.
13. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 16:54 · Score: 0
  
  You really know nothing about twitter. You don't have to have any account just to read public posts. The better analogy is that public posts on twitter are like posting a flyer on the bulletin board in the public square, except you're posting it in every city, and anyone with an internet connection can drive there instantly to read whatever they want. You can use your analogy and tweak it, where really, if you join the freemasons lodge, they'll poll the bulletin boards around town that you told them to and compile it into a custom newspaper for you that they have sitting in your mailbox at the lodge. You can still go and read any of them without joining, they just as a member benefit compile things for you.
14. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Known+Nutter · 2014-01-07 16:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  you are immediately confronted with a login page (just like facebook), and you have to have credentials in order to see the posts
  But that's not what has happened in this case. DPD's Facebook page is public and viewable without being logged into Facebook, as are the details of each officer's discipline posted on Facebook.
  
  --
  Beware of the Leopard.
15. Re: Aren't these private websites? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 17:05 · Score: 0
  
  You don't need a login (or invite, or to be a member) to read public tweets, so you can just sit down and stop talking and let the adults have a conversation.
16. Re:Aren't these private websites? by aztracker1 · 2014-01-07 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  And I'm sure it'd be as fair and balanced as any propaganda outlet.. I don't think we'd see anything resembling objections to the NSA spying if people got their news from the government. As blatantly biased as the likes of CNN and FOX News are, I'll take them over a state run propaganda wing.
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
17. Re:Aren't these private websites? by aztracker1 · 2014-01-07 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  Unless setup otherwise you can view a feed on twitter without an account.. the same is actually true of facebook. I think the bigger story would be if the Dallas PC had his account hidden, and not public.
  
  No public means of notification have 100% coverage.. but I'd bet more people in the U.S. check their facebook page daily than watch the evening news.
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
18. Re:Aren't these private websites? by TWX · 2014-01-07 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  The barrier to legally have notified the community is very, very small. In my area there's a privately-owned weekly newspaper that serves the small local Orthodox Jewish community that is very frequently used for when organizations have to formally notify the public of corporation paperwork filings and other official changes, and the vast majority of those paid announcements are not made by members of that local Orthodox Jewish community. It happens that the circulation is considered high enough to meet the minimum criteria for a public notice, the prices for the notices are low, and the paper makes it easy to buy the public notice space.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
19. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 18:04 · Score: 0
  
  The better analogy is that public posts on twitter are like posting a flyer on the bulletin board in the public square
  A private bulletin board facing the public square, on the side of some business. The business at any time can take it down or cover it up. But that doesn't matter anyway, since the point is to get the news out, not archive it via twitter. If polices change, they can change where it is posted.
20. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 18:07 · Score: 0
  
  So by your own definitions twitter is public then? That directly contradicts your rhetorical question in your original post.
21. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 18:52 · Score: 0
  
  Well if the accounts are true and a fair representation of what those cops did, then I'd say most of the actions seem justified.
  
  #1 might be a bit harsh to me, but many view DWI really seriously no matter what the "BAC" is.
  
  The rest of the sacked cops are those you wouldn't want involved in arresting or pointing guns at you. The one demoted was a senior and setting a bad example to a recruit.
22. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  I don't see how you've answered my question to your OP.
  "I'm not a member of either and do not get his tweets or posts, so how is this a 'push for transparency'?"
  "Slashdot is a "public" website, in that anyone can come and see all of the posts. But suppose that they changed it. Suppose that when you went to slashdot.org, you are immediately confronted with a login page (just like facebook), and you have to have credentials in order to see the posts. That's how not."
  So... what?
23. Re:Aren't these private websites? by mysidia · 2014-01-08 00:41 · Score: 2
  
  You don't have to subscribe to get a newspaper. Anyone can simply (and anonymously) purchase a newspaper.
  That might be true for some newspapers -- but even if the newspaper required showing an ID to be logged in a database, in order to purchase without a regular subscription: it would still count as a public notice, as long as enough people in the community were buying it.
  If you're not a member, you don't get that 'news
  Anyone with access to an internet connection can freely become a "member" of Twitter. Which is sufficient. It is not required to provide anonymous access, for Public notices, records, and documentation, to be officiallyl recognized as public notices, records, documentation, etc.
  In fact, to view public records at a courthouse, in general You have to show ID, and possibly sign a log.
  Also; in general, you do not need to signup for membership on Twitter just to view or search tweets, aside from tweets from "private" (restricted) users. You only need a "membership" to use mobile devices, to send your own messages, or to use the convenient "follow" action --- to get notification of another user's tweets.
24. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  Is there a newspaper of record for where you live? You remember newspapers. They are like web sites that you print out.
25. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Stewie241 · 2014-01-08 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  I think his argument is that because Facebook or Twitter could at any time delete the posts/tweets, therefore it isn't transparent. Where with a physical newspaper once it is printed you can't unprint it.
  I personally think he is missing the point. The point of this is presumably not to make a permanent, archived record, but more to make the information available in a way that is accessible to many. It also isn't the same as a public notice which is generally trying to ensure a good proportion of the constituency receives the information. The point is to make the information easily accessible, not to ensure that it does get accessed.
  A newspaper is just as free to stop distributing old editions, and it likely isn't too difficult, but also not super easy to get a copy of a three year old newspaper from the newspaper itself (i.e. it likely involves at least a phone call and some cost to have it reprinted from the archives or whatever they do).
  The more important signal here is to indicate to the public that police officers no longer have carte blanche to do whatever they want and rely on the protection of the police force to cover it up. The majority of the police officers who are working hard to do their jobs well and be upstanding citizens don't have to worry about wearing the reputation of the few jackasses that are doing stupid stuff and not facing any consequences.
26. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Arker · 2014-01-08 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  They are and this is the one thing he is clearly doing wrong here.
  He has an official website provided by the tax payers and accessible to all. That's where this should be posted. Not on a pseudo-random private web site that is going to try to 'monetize' anyone that shows up looking for the information.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
27. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe I was on the "wrong" part of the site (assuming there's a right part), but last time I visited Facebook, to look at information for some event I think, I got a giant "you must have a facebook account to account to view this" message. And it was just a modal window covering up a portion of the page, so I could still see most of the page, I just couldn't scroll or click on anything. So it isn't like it was a security thing. It was just facebook being a dick.
28. Re:Aren't these private websites? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  "Public = walk right in, (maybe pay some money) see everything
  Private = Prove membership (then see "Public" above)"
  Uh, no....
  Public = owned by taxpayers
  Private = not owned by taxpayers
  Youre confusing "publicly accessible" with "public".
29. Re:Aren't these private websites? by nbauman · 2014-01-08 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody gave me a copy of the New York Jewish Week to ask me what I thought of it. They had six classified pages of legal notices.
  I don't think the New York Times has six pages of classified ads any more.
Unlikely to last by ERJ · 2014-01-07 15:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Although I do think it is a good thing in that it helps strengthen the community support and trust of the police department I have a feeling that it will end at some point in the near future with a lawsuit....maybe I am just jaded but there is a reason that corporations tend to keep these details silent and have created the (poor in my opinion) rules around providing only the minimal amount of employment information after an employee is let go.
1. Re:Unlikely to last by Scutter · 2014-01-07 15:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The department isn't a corporation and they are public employees. The time for police to keep things behind closed doors has long since passed.
  
  --
  
  "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
2. Re:Unlikely to last by ERJ · 2014-01-07 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  No, but the department can be sued like a corporation can.
  
  Like I said, I think it is a good thing but that doesn't mean it won't fall to the lawyers.
3. Re:Unlikely to last by Scutter · 2014-01-07 15:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'm more concerned with the amount of criminal activity listed in the spreadsheet. These are just the ones that have been caught.
  
  --
  
  "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
4. Re:Unlikely to last by mysidia · 2014-01-07 15:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Although I do think it is a good thing in that it helps strengthen the community support and trust of the police department I have a feeling that it will end at some point in the near future with a lawsuit
  This is possible... and the Police chief may be found in the wrong, if he isn't very careful about what representations he makes in public. There could later be made a claim of libelous defamation -- particularly if the twitter messages imply the target for action was affirmatively guilty, and not "Dismissed under suspicion or allegation of X".
5. Re:Unlikely to last by troll+-1 · 2014-01-07 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  I have a feeling that it will end at some point in the near future with a lawsuit....
  But cops make press announcements all the time. What the diff? This is just a new meduim.
6. Re:Unlikely to last by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 16:47 · Score: 0
  
  If a cop was late for work 5 times and the chief fires him and puts out a tweet that he was fired because he was an alcoholic than yes. If there was enough evidence to backup firing him for being late, I see no risk in letting people know that you fired him for being late. People get fired for blatantly obvious things all the time. I am all about transparency for police officers. Power like that can and does go crazy when it is unchecked.
  That being said, I work for a large law firm, when someone quits, downsized, fired, etc. The firm says nothing other then they are no longer employed here. Even when people call to inquire or verify employment of a previous employee, they can and do only give the dates that person worked here and verify the official position they had, no opinions of the person, no reason for why they no longer work here, not how much they made for salary or bonuses, no telling them we would never hire that stupid fuck back again because we caught him stealing peoples lunch from refrigerator. Nothing like that. Yes John Doe worked here, from 1/2006 until 10/2013 and his title was network administrator. He no longer works here.
7. Re:Unlikely to last by TWX · 2014-01-07 18:07 · Score: 2
  
  No, but the department can be sued like a corporation can.
  
  Like I said, I think it is a good thing but that doesn't mean it won't fall to the lawyers.
  Even more importantly, depending on how a given state has written their rules on employment and privacy, this kind of thing might be quite illegal in some places, and given specifically that this is the police and an arm of the state, an actual prosecution and conviction might be required for them to assert that anything at all publicly-disclosable has happened.
  
  Slander and libel laws might also apply, especially if there are disputes in the events that led to the dismissals, and moreso if the fired staff member is later vindicated and can demonstrate that the statements made by the employer prevented them from finding work elsewhere. Lots of employers, when called to confirm that someone had worked there, will give little more than a factual statement that the person worked there and the range of time in which they did.
  
  I'm certainly not going to dispute that it's important for employers to stop retaining employees that are actively bad, and doubly so for law enforcement employees, but should something like this backfire on the department then it could not only mean trouble with the employee in question, but trouble disciplining future employees.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
8. Re:Unlikely to last by jklovanc · 2014-01-07 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  The "rules around providing only the minimal amount of employment information after an employee is let go" are not a benefit to corporations. They are in fact a hindrance as they make it more difficult to weed out bad employment candidates.
  These rules came about due to libel litigation brought forth by publicly fired employees. Most companies would rather say nothing that risk a day in court, and the expenses involved.
9. Re:Unlikely to last by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 18:46 · Score: 0
  
  it's a difference between "there was a fire in the local mall and we made arrests for arson, trial next tuesday" and "troll-1 laid fire to the mall (we suspect)". The last one taints you forever, even if you were innocent.
  Once someone is convicted by court giving the name might(!) be OK, but simply because of a discliplinarian cause without "real" tests (the pd chief could make things up, you know...) is NOT OK. In my opinion.
10. Re:Unlikely to last by oobayly · 2014-01-07 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  Are you really trying to say that the police never release the name of a person arrested on suspicion of committing a crime?
  Or are you saying that two wrongs don't make a right?
11. Re:Unlikely to last by C0R1D4N · 2014-01-08 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  This is why most applications have "May we contact this supervisor", if you put no they assume you left on gad terms
12. Re:Unlikely to last by jklovanc · 2014-01-08 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  That is also an intelligence test as most employers will not disclose the quality of employee work due to litigation fear. So not only did the applicant admit they left on bad terms but they admit they also don't know how HR works.
As it should be... by sconeu · 2014-01-07 15:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree with Forty Two Tenfold. It's good PR Stunt.
If cops are canned for disciplinary reasons, they should be called out in public. Good for the chief here.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
1. Re:As it should be... by gnoshi · 2014-01-07 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  So what would differentiate a 'good PR stunt' from 'good transparency practices'?
  If that police department engages in other anti-transparency behaviour which indicate that any apparent transparency efforts are actually cynical PR smokescreens then sure, calling this a PR stunt is a reasonable. However, if the PD is not engaged in other anti-transparency behaviour, and this particular effort to be more transparent is dismissed out of hand as cynical PR activity then it doesn't encourage others to follow suit.
2. Re:As it should be... by HalAtWork · 2014-01-07 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  They are public servants and should have to answer to public scrutiny.
  
  --
  Twinstiq, game news
Good start by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 15:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Get rid if your SWAT department, tanks, and machine guns next.
1. Re:Good start by aztracker1 · 2014-01-07 17:56 · Score: 2
  
  Though a need for tanks is pretty dubious... Any city of over a million residents should probably have a SWAT department, as well as this department having trained snipers and machine guns. It's the extend of this that becomes a problem when you have x% of the population as police, and y% of the police carrying assault weapons regularly.
  
  Afaik, most of the tanks police departments have do not have large caliber gun turrets and are mainly used as mobile barriers in practice... All of that said, I would feel much better if police were less inclined to reach for their weapons as often, the use of tazers in particular has probably done far more harm in every major U.S. city than all of the tanks of all the PDs of the US combined.
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
2. Re:Good start by jklovanc · 2014-01-07 18:19 · Score: 2
  
  And the criminals will be better armed than the police.
  Calling what SWAT units have as tanks is misleading. The heaviest vehicles I have seen are like this. These are armored personnel carriers (APCs) and not tanks. Notice no main gun or even heavy armament.
  (I wonder if I fed the troll; It is hard to tell now a days)
3. Re:Good start by mythosaz · 2014-01-08 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Look harder...
  http://njtoaz.smugmug.com/Police/Maricopa-County-Sheriff/12272935_VDtZH9/1743890101_DDTvpXz#!i=1743890101&k=DDTvpXz
  The main gun is now just a battering ram, but, well...
  ...that's a tank.
4. Re:Good start by jklovanc · 2014-01-08 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the caption on that vehicle is incorrect. This is an M1 Abrams. What they actually have is a M109 self propelled howitzer.
  You also might want to look a little further. According to this article;
  
  But colorful and controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he's not going to use the Korean War-era, tanklike weapon to blow up drug dens. The howitzer has been painted black and disabled, its gun plugged, and it has been converted into a mobile anti-drug classroom.
That explains it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 15:16 · Score: 0

So now we know what cops are doing when they don't respond to 911 calls. But seriously, twitter and facebook? Were these private messages at least, or open for all the world to see? Kinda like the guy who calls the whole office together to fire you in front of everybody, instead of calling you into the office and dealing with you there. What a douche.
1. Re:That explains it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  Kinda like the guy who calls the whole office together to fire you in front of everybody, instead of calling you into the office and dealing with you there. What a douche.
  
  Calling me into the office for some shady "downsizing" crap? Fuck that noise, I want everyone there (including my union rep) to witness any bullshit sandwiches being served up.
Is that suitable? by cold+fjord · 2014-01-07 15:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

If it would end up in the newspaper, fine. Otherwise it could be considered a form of public humiliation.
It also runs contrary to the old rule of praise in public, discipline in private. (Subject to transparency requirements.)
I certainly hope that they aren't finding out after the news goes out.
I wonder how often those tweets will have to be eaten? Tweet in haste, repent at leisure.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
1. Re:Is that suitable? by koan · 2014-01-07 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well look at how many got canned or disciplined, it seems to me making it public keeps them in line, and who the hell reads a newspaper?
  Oh you mean on a tablet or something right? Right next to Twitter.
  
  --
  "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
2. Re:Is that suitable? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  If it would end up in the newspaper, fine. Otherwise it could be considered a form of public humiliation.
  Funny. I thought a major point of putting any such details in the newspaper was because it was a form of public humiliation. You know, so the public can see that public official is being adequately chastised for their wrongdoing.
  
  It also runs contrary to the old rule of praise in public, discipline in private. (Subject to transparency requirements.)
  "The old rule"? Yea, uh, that's a crappy rule.
  
  I certainly hope that they aren't finding out after the news goes out.
  Well, yes, it should go without question that the person should hear it first from their boss and not from the newspaper or a public tweet or whatever. But, that's basically a disconnected fact.
  
  I wonder how often those tweets will have to be eaten? Tweet in haste, repent at leisure.
  I have no idea what you're saying, here, except perhaps some worry that they'll have to issue retractions in the future. Well, newspapers do it all the time, and we don't pay much mind to that point. So, I don't see a big deal as long as the Dallas PD is prompt about it when necessary, with "prompt" being relatively the speed of the ability to issue a retraction.
3. Re:Is that suitable? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  When the public has suffered for decades under policies of "praise in public, never discipline," it's important to make sure they know criminals and murderers actually are being disciplined, even lightly.
4. Re:Is that suitable? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 18:36 · Score: 0
  
  well, in my country the pillory was abandoned quite a while ago (was extremely rare even in the 1800s).
  If you insist modern forms of it to be "normal" - well, one more reason, I'd never want to live in the USA.
  (another AC than the GP, btw)
5. Re:Is that suitable? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 18:51 · Score: 0
  
  oops, wrong part reply :-)
6. Re:Is that suitable? by Hatta · 2014-01-08 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Cops who abuse their power deserve public humiliation, and prison.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Welcome by troll+-1 · 2014-01-07 15:32 · Score: 2

The new perp walk.
NYC 100+ NYPD Scum by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 15:40 · Score: -1

20 and more year ago these thing were never talked about nor discussed at all outside an "inner circle."
Then, the pervert could hide in anonymity with complete confidence of not being "outed."
The Pervert and Layer would "play" court and legal state and local bureaucracy and win.
Now, the Pervert has no where to hide, even if the Pervert if Barak Hussein Obama Kenyan President of the United States of America.
Let the National Security Council, FBI and Secret Service digest that!
Ahhh more evidence of militerized police. by koan · 2014-01-07 16:00 · Score: 2

"I have terminated SC Amy Wilburn today for firing her weapon upon an unarmed person without fear or justification."
Cops where I live are getting scary, the young cops especially.
At the local range I got ~70% of banned names on the board of shame are cops.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
1. Re:Ahhh more evidence of militerized police. by koan · 2014-01-07 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  Should be "At the local range I go to", anyway you know when it's a cop shooting, they always exceed the 1 second rule and are general asshats.
  
  --
  "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
2. Re:Ahhh more evidence of militerized police. by godel_56 · 2014-01-07 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  Should be "At the local range I go to", anyway you know when it's a cop shooting, they always exceed the 1 second rule and are general asshats.
  Sorry, but what's the one second rule?
  As to the tweets, it might be better if his accompanying photo didn't show him smiling as he offed all these people.
3. Re:Ahhh more evidence of militerized police. by Indy1 · 2014-01-07 16:45 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  my guess, the one second rule is "no more then 1 shot fired per second"
  Many inexperienced shooters try to fire too quickly (and not fully in control), and hit things they shouldnt, like target holders, other peoples targets, etc.
  Personally I hate rules like that, as it interferes with many of my drills, but I'm also a competition handgun shooter, so I've got a little more experience with controlled double taps, Mozambique drills, etc, compared to the average joe.
  
  --
  Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
4. Re:Ahhh more evidence of militerized police. by koan · 2014-01-08 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  They have places for you to go though, IDPA ranges, or pods, generally 6 meter high 180 degree coverage dirt berms where you can quick draw and rapid fire.
  On a public range full of idiots it's the last thing you want.
  And the rule is strictly enforced, so it's usually the cops scoffing at the rules in these places.
  Personally, I feel I'm more competent with my weapon than any cop I have met.
  
  --
  "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
5. Re:Ahhh more evidence of militerized police. by smooth+wombat · 2014-01-08 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  so it's usually the cops scoffing at the rules in these places.
  
  So no different than network admins and programmers who scoff at security rules in a workplace.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
6. Re: Ahhh more evidence of militerized police. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  Do people get shot when that happens.
7. Re: Ahhh more evidence of militerized police. by smooth+wombat · 2014-01-08 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  I wish. Instead they're coddled and some bullshit explanation for why they should be allowed to violate basic security is trotted out.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Once more liberals interested in things ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 16:06 · Score: -1

only when convenient.
If the cops tweeted out the names of people arrested for crimes they would go ballistic.
But cops aren't worthy of the same due process.
If some employee at a big business tweeted out names of employees fired, or some Target worker tweeted out people who were arrested for shoplifting in Target, they would be fired. So should David O. Brown.
1. Re:Once more liberals interested in things ... by JeffAtl · 2014-01-07 16:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If the cops tweeted out the names of people arrested for crimes they would go ballistic.
  Police departments have been publishing photos and names of people arrested on their websites for years. How could you not know this?
  Regardless, cops actually get preferential treatment when it comes to due process as it is almost impossible to find a prosecutor that will try to convict a cop - especially not in the same jurisdiction. Even if cops are caught with overwhelming evidence of criminal acts, the usually face firing where non-cops would face years in prison.
2. Re:Once more liberals interested in things ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 18:38 · Score: 0
  
  well, in my country the pillory was abandoned quite a while ago (was extremely rare even in the 1800s).
  If you insist modern forms of it to be "normal" - and yes, "public shaming" on websites, twitter etc. are this, even more so because it will never be truly deleted - well, one more reason I'd never want to live in the USA.
  (another AC than the GP, btw)
3. Re:Once more liberals interested in things ... by JeffAtl · 2014-01-07 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  Not really sure what point you're trying to make.
  I'm am certainly not in favor of "public shaming", but if it is good enough for non-cops, then cops should be subject to it as well.
4. Re:Once more liberals interested in things ... by g0bshiTe · 2014-01-08 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  There's a difference in buried in a pd's website vs logging into twitter and seeing it listed in the quick search.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
5. Re:Once more liberals interested in things ... by JeffAtl · 2014-01-08 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  They names of photos of those arrested aren't "buried" on a department's website.
  Police departments also provide the information and photos for newspapers to use in their "police blotter" sections. The newspapers make these available online - just like twitter.
  Regardless, cops have always argued against any expectation of privacy.
6. Re:Once more liberals interested in things ... by captjc · 2014-01-08 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know where you live, but where I live all arrests are placed in the local newspaper. Some of them are even placed on the local TV news if it is a felony offense or just a slow news day.
  
  --
  Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
7. Re:Once more liberals interested in things ... by mcgrew · 2014-01-15 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know where you live, but where I live all arrests are placed in the local newspaper.
  And where would that be? The NYT's motto used to be (is?) "all the news that's fit to print" but I've never seen that, all I've seen is "all the news that fits, we print." Do you really believe that the NYT lists every arrest in the New York area?? Do you have any idea how many people are arrested every day even in a small city?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Dallas Police Massaged Crime Statistics by Nova+Express · 2014-01-07 16:28 · Score: 2

Interesting, because the Dallas Police Department was accused of massaging the crime statistics back when Tom Leppert was Mayor. /Note: I'm part of the vast right wing conspiracy, but those charges were leveled by a columnist for the the left-wing Dallas Observer.

--
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
It's one thing to worry about losing your job by LookIntoTheFuture · 2014-01-07 16:29 · Score: 1

add public humiliation and well... dead suspects tell no tales.

--
Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
On Twitter? by Greyfox · 2014-01-07 16:50 · Score: 1

"This little piggy went 'waah waah waah' all the way home #firedanotherone"?

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
two sides to this coin by SeanBlader · 2014-01-07 16:59 · Score: 1

As a citizen this is kind of nice to see any LEO Agency making an effort to be open about their practices. On the other hand though this is some very bad way for a boss to treat his employees, it's bad enough to get yelled at in the office, let alone to get it broadcasted to the world.
1. Re:two sides to this coin by Stewie241 · 2014-01-08 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  The top of the facebook post says "Dallas Police Chief David O. Brown disciplined the following officers during hearings this morning.".
  This isn't just about a boss disciplining his employees. This seems to be posting the results of police disciplinary hearings.
  There is a difference between yelled at for making mistakes at your job and being involved in a disciplinary hearing.
2. Re:two sides to this coin by Stewie241 · 2014-01-08 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Also, as I searched a bit, there is precedent for making this information publicly available. If you look at http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cpb/auto_generated/police_discipline_archives.html you will find the equivalent information from the Chicago Police Department - a record of findings and decisions made by the Chicago Police board with respect to police discipline.
  So what is new here is not the fact that this information is being made publicly available (it already has, if not in Dallas, in other jurisdictions), but that the information is being made public via Facebook and Twitter.
3. Re:two sides to this coin by g0bshiTe · 2014-01-08 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  That's a huge difference, how many people even in Chicago know of that particular page vs how many people got an update from #CopsBusted.
  
  This is about like your spouse catching you cheating and renting a billboard and plastering your image on it with huge letters saying "CHEATER or ADULTERER" vs buying local tv airtime to post same over a few of your local cable channels, which would you rather have?
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
4. Re:two sides to this coin by g0bshiTe · 2014-01-08 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Also given that when a prospective employer calls your present or a former employer those old employers can only say "Yes x worked here" they can't by law go into detail about your work habits. How can the PD do it?
  
  Don't get me wrong, I fully understand and support transparency and accountability in our public servants, but I know I sure as hell wouldn't want every one of my write ups from my employers made public forever online.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
5. Re:two sides to this coin by Stewie241 · 2014-01-08 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  "Also given that when a prospective employer calls your present or a former employer those old employers can only say "Yes x worked here" they can't by law go into detail about your work habits."
  Is there actually such a law? My understanding was that the general practice is more a safeguard against litigation happy employees filing defamation lawsuits. What's different here is that these are the results of disciplinary hearings where evidence has been presented and a decision has been made. i.e. the information is vetted and is probably less likely to contain false/inaccurate information.
  I totally agree on the write ups from employers, and as such I really hope/assume that these sorts of things are reserved for rather more egregious cases (such as unwarranted police violence, corruption, etc).
Twitter War with the Dallas Morning News by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 19:27 · Score: 0

He's already gotten into a mild argument with the Dallas Morning News over Twitter:
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/01/dallas_police_chief_david_brow_1.php
Why do we need police at all then? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 19:30 · Score: 0

This is a spectacular idea!
Apparently this waste of skin believes that his job should be reduced to that of the town militia in medieval times where the stocks were used as punishment for crimes not warranting death (which was most of the serious ones). If he is intending to use the modern equivalent of the stocks, why not eliminate him and his job altogether and go back to using a militia?
OR, this could just be yet another way for employers to look for ways to fuck over the employees who have become so lazy, complacent and timid that they have given away all their rights in two decades that took the previous two generations to build.
Nice bit of sensationalism in the article by wonkey_monkey · 2014-01-07 20:21 · Score: 1

Officer Laura Martin was not fired but promoted this year. Here she is, standing bravely alongside Dallas Police Chief David Brown. But do you see fear behind her eyes?

No, no I don't.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
This is where we're headed by MindPrison · 2014-01-07 22:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

Unfortunately, this is the current trend. While it may sound like a PR stunt, this is actually quite tragic. Why? Because it just shows us how FAR we've gotten into total surveillance. Sure, it could be nice to know that a cop is dirty and WHO that cop is, but many are fired for other reasons and this could potentially destroy the individuals future. Say - the cop was actually innocent, he's a human and not just another cop. Now, he'll have a hard time supporting his family because no one wants to hire someone busted on the job. The price we pay for knowing everything about everyone, will one day become too expensive, and I fear - it already is.

--
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
1. Re:This is where we're headed by SleazyRidr · 2014-01-08 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'm glad to see so many comments like this for this story. I was expecting a lot of anti-establishment "fuck the police" sentiment, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the rights of privacy that everyone expects for themselves also apply to policemen. I don't like seeing police getting away with shooting innocent people because they don't like the colour of their skin, but this is too much of an overreaction.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
2. Re:This is where we're headed by evil_aaronm · 2014-01-08 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Ya know, people get arrested all the time, and their names and mug shots are available for all to see. Not all of those arrested are guilty; some of them are completely innocent. Doesn't stop the cops from releasing available information about these arrests, does it? Why should we show extra concern toward accused police, and not accused non-police?
3. Re:This is where we're headed by Anti-Social+Network · 2014-01-08 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Say - the cop was actually innocent, he's a human and not just another cop. Now, he'll have a hard time supporting his family because no one wants to hire someone busted on the job.
  One would hope a bit of judicious word choice would be employed as appropriate. I do have to wonder how often the undeserved negatives you're concerned about would actually be found here - if it's a real problem, that would be the real story IMHO. These are offenses which even the Blue Line has not protected them from, let's recall. I don't like the idea of throwing a good cop under the bus for something minor, but if it was a firing infraction I'd say name-and-shame is the right way to counteract the hubris and "Judge Dredd" attitude a lot of cops seem to have.
  Being a cop is hard. It's a calling many are not up to. And yes, they all make mistakes at some point. But the reason it's hard is because it's so important to get it right. You screw it up bad enough to get fired over it - sorry, but your best use is as an example to the remaining officers, and prospective officers, of what they're not going to get away with. "Who watches the watchers?" It has to be us, or there is no accountability, without which the regular citizens become second-class victims-to-be.
  
  --
  Goddammit just when I get my first +5 the Beta rolls out and kills everything
Slightly Impressed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 01:59 · Score: 0

Color me impressed, a police chief who wants to actually hold his deputies at least slightly accountable. Its at least a start, but real change won't happen until officers are charged and convicted for any crimes they might commit while on duty. Its not acceptable for your average person to get away with shooting an unarmed teenager or chucking a woman face first into a concrete ledge so why is it so often the case with officers?
No but Two Wongs make it White!! by RobertLTux · 2014-01-08 02:09 · Score: 1

anywho any Police Blotter type thing needs to be worded very carefully (and i would have a list of folks that were CLEARED also published)

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Legality of this? by g0bshiTe · 2014-01-08 03:38 · Score: 1

Isn't this illegal? I mean I understand the public holding police to a higher standard than private or even public companies, but let's say one of those companies did the same to an employee, isn't there grounds for a lawsuit even if there was a disciplinary action taken against the employee? If the answer is yes, then how come the employees for the PD are being exposed via public medium for their transgressions?

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Bad Policy. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 06:40 · Score: 0

This action represents the misuse of force by somebody in the PD who should know better. FAIL.
Less pigs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 15:37 · Score: 0

I'm always pro-that.