Slashdot Mirror


LA Police Officers Suspected of Tampering With Their Monitoring Systems

An anonymous reader writes "An internal audit conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in March revealed that 'dozens of the [voice] transmitters worn by officers in Southeast Division were missing or damaged.' In the summer of 2013, this same division was found to have mysteriously lost 45% of the antennae placed on their cars to pick up the signals sent by their voice transmitters. The Southeast Division of the LAPD covers an area that has 'historically been marred by mistrust and claims of officer abuse.' For decades, the LAPD had been closely monitored by the U.S. Department of Justice, but a federal judge in 2013 decided to end that practice after being assured by the LAPD and city officials that the LAPD sufficiently monitors itself via dash-cams and voice transmitters. A formal investigation is currently being conducted to determine whether or not police officers intentionally subverted mandatory efforts to monitor and record their patrols."

322 comments

  1. Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For any officer found with damaged or missing recording equipment, suspend without pay or confine to desk jockey. Unacceptable to claim equipment is broken or doesn't work so the policy goes to the wayside.

    1. Re:Easy fix by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just deduct the repair bill from their pay. They'll soon start working.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Easy fix by GrandCow · · Score: 2, Informative

      The antennas on the car are probably less than $10. The voice transmitters are probably $50-100. If they only do an audit once a year, it's a small price to pay for someone that doesn't want their actions being monitored.

      --
      "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
    3. Re:Easy fix by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For any officer found with damaged or missing recording equipment, suspend without pay or confine to desk jockey. Unacceptable to claim equipment is broken or doesn't work so the policy goes to the wayside.

      I'd throw tampering and obstruction charges in on the second offense.

      If anything, cops need to be held to the letter of the law more strictly than those of us who are not tasked with enforcing it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Easy fix by Carcass666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just deduct the repair bill from their pay. They'll soon start working.

      Good luck with that given the power of their union.

    5. Re:Easy fix by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      The article claims that they check the antennas before and after each shift, so they would know as soon as one was missing, and give the bill to whoever had the car during that shift.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re:Easy fix by number17 · · Score: 1

      The price to pay is to install and verify that it is working, not the equipment itself.

    7. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For any officer found with damaged or missing recording equipment, suspend without pay or confine to desk jockey. Unacceptable to claim equipment is broken or doesn't work so the policy goes to the wayside.

      I'm sure that would get the full support of the police union, too.

      NOT.

    8. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at union rates, it probably takes 2 hours to fix ....

    9. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If anything, cops need to be held to the letter of the law more strictly than those of us who are not tasked with enforcing it.

      Justice is never found in applying the law differently to different groups.

    10. Re:Easy fix by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem with closing loopholes isn't figuring out what needs to be done. It's usually obvious: you close the fucking loophole.

      The problem is usually actually doing it without giving up more ground than you get. Law enforcement anywhere tends to think that oversight is a conspiracy to aid the bad guys, and resists thinking that they themselves are or even can be the bad guys. LAPD in particular. That mindset goes back a long time and is undoubtedly entrenched at every level. Any moves which actually bring the LAPD under reasonable oversight will be resisted by damn near everyone.

      With campaign finance reform, that's resisted for similar reasons, but there's competition working for it: a politician who says he wants to reform things might be hurt by it, but so will his opponents. With law enforcement, reform isn't really beneficial to anyone since it just hurts everyone and no one gets ahead by enacting it.

    11. Re:Easy fix by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Police officers share cars. Unless you inspect the vehicle at the beginning and end of every shift there is no way of knowing who ripped the antenna off. I would also bet that there are a fair number of antennas ripped off by non-police officers. Police cars are an easy targets for vandals. I wonder how many other antennas are removed from squad cars. If it is always just the voice antenna it would be an issue. Even then, maybe the voice antenna is just easier to remove and non-police vandals target it more.

      I agree that there is some police vandalism but I doubt it is the whole story.

    12. Re:Easy fix by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just deduct the repair bill from their pay. They'll soon start working.

      Seems like it would be more effective if judges held police responsible for proper functioning of their recording devices, and gave the benefit of the doubt to those that accuse the police of wrongdoing when the mandated surveillance equipment that could prove the allegations was mysteriously "out of order".

    13. Re:Easy fix by pedrop357 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, just apply it to them as they do to us.

    14. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Suspend without pay ? They need to be FIRED - they are purposely trying to circumvent evidence gathering which will impact many people's lives. Plus this is arguably theft and destruction of tax payer funded equipment and the Police involved should be charged with crimes for such just like any other citizen would be.

    15. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You think the police would buy a similar excuse when they bust someone with drugs in their car?

    16. Re:Easy fix by 0111+1110 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I would simply summarily execute any cop whose recording gear malfunctioned at a critical time. They'd get the same fair trial they give to the people they murder and beat and frame for crimes they never committed.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    17. Re:Easy fix by taustin · · Score: 2

      So any cop you don't like, like the one who is going to testify against you, is easy to get rid of by just braking the antenna off on his car? Man, that's just a brilliant plan!

    18. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But they don't have to damage their device every day. Only on the days they're planning on pocketing some money from a drug bust. That's still a low cost.

    19. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions work to protect workers from a bad boss. The police work for society at large. Who are they unionizing against? Society at large?

    20. Re:Easy fix by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While I would normally agree here, we are talking about the people who sign up and take an oath to uphold the law....laws which they are clearly breaking by damaging public property. Worst, they are doing so with the intention of obstructing their own job of collecting evidence of crimes to present to the court. So in fact, they are obstructing justice, destroying property, and possibly breaking several other statutes at the same time.

      This is nothing other people wouldn't be charged with for destroying police equipment willfully. I garauntee you if I took one of these devices and damaged it so it didn't work, I would be charged with all that and more.

      So the reality is...in NOT charging them, the law is being applied differently.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    21. Re:Easy fix by arth1 · · Score: 1

      the Police involved should be charged with crimes for such just like any other citizen would be.

      I think you mean "should be". In reality, they may get beaten up, charged with resisting and interfering when all they did was piss off a policeman, or even planted drugs on.

      The police needs to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.

    22. Re:Easy fix by matthewv789 · · Score: 1

      Why wait for the second offense?

    23. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fired?

      How about arrested and charged with numerous crimes and felonies?

      What do you think the police would do if they caught someone else vandalizing the law enforcement equipment in their car?

    24. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      If their union is so powerful, how come they're subject to routine monitoring in this way at work?

      It looks like the negative publicity from a not so great track record is exerting more pressure than anyone's union right now.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    25. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're too lenient. This is a consciouss act these cops are doing, with full fledge knowledge of its effects on the judicial process. They should be outright fired and with charges brought upon them. At minimum, obstruction of justice. Sadly, we aren't there yet, and close to nothing will happen to them for what they did.

    26. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Justice is never found in applying the law differently to different groups.

      Perhaps. However, there is an inherent inequality here because the law inevitably grants certain additional rights and powers to police officers that are not enjoyed by the common citizen. It is not unreasonable to assign proportionately greater responsibility to them as well.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    27. Re:Easy fix by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 2

      Once could be an accident. Twice starts a pattern.

    28. Re:Easy fix by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Unions work to protect workers from a bad boss. The police work for society at large. Who are they unionizing against? Society at large?

      Yes.

    29. Re:Easy fix by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      To make it fair, have a checklist before they roll out the door that includes verifying that the transmitter and receiver and present and functional. Failure to follow the checklist and report non-functional equipment results in the above. This way legitimate breakages aren't punished (and therefor hidden) and you also shift it from a "we don't trust you" to a "you didn't follow procedure". While the fact is that you don't trust them, morale will suffer less from the latter than the former.

    30. Re:Easy fix by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      My argument would be more along the lines of: It's ok for them to be given the power they need to do their job as long as they are accountable. Monitoring systems ensures there is no abuse.

    31. Re:Easy fix by Yakasha · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'd throw tampering and obstruction charges in on the second offense.

      Ah, I see you're new to the whole "filing charges" thing. The correct filing should include (but is absolutely not limited to):

      Evidence tampering, hindering an investigation, obstruction of justice, vandalizing government property, theft, fraud, abusing authority, circumventing electronic security, computer hacking, assault, providing material support to terrorists, and a "conspiracy to commit" of every one of those charges.

    32. Re:Easy fix by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Into generalizations much? All police officers are not alike. Sure there are some bad cops but there are also some very god cops. By the way, there is a saying the covers this "two wrongs don't make a right".

    33. Re:Easy fix by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Once could be an accident. Twice starts a pattern.

      This.

      Also, I'm a big believer in second chances.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    34. Re:Easy fix by meerling · · Score: 2

      LAPD are the 'bad guys'. Just look at their track record. Admittedly, there are a lot of good guys in the LAPD, but there are way too many scum. Those that do the illegal actions, and those that stand by and don't stop or otherwise report them for their wrongdoing.

      Yes, those that do nothing are bad guys as well since it's their job to stop the illegal activities, especially those of other enforcement officers that are supposed to be stopping crime in a legal fashion rather than performing crimes. (Let the punctuation prefects figure out how to sort that sentence out.)

      You ever heard the old statement that "one rotten apple spoils the barrel"? Well, they've got a lot of rotten apples in their barrel. Even their own investigations into themselves have shown that. And it leads all the way to the top as they have consistently done nothing to curb it or punish the wrongdoings that have been identified until it splashes all over the media and they've got politicians breathing down their necks. And even then, they do the bare minimum to mollify the politicians.

      There is no easy fix for the LAPD due to the extensive and ingrained corruption from the beat to the big boss in charge. A clean sweep might work, but there actually are some good cops there that would get screwed by that, and more importantly, it would leave the city in a major lurch for far too long to be considered acceptable. On top of that, the cost would be huge and I have no idea if LA could even afford to do something like that, and that's without even taking into account the numerous lawsuits that would inevitably happen from many different sources.

    35. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd get the same fair trial they give to the fictional people they murder and beat and frame for crimes they never committed.

      Fixed that for you.

    36. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LAPD are the 'bad guys'. Just look at their track record.

      Look like they are doing a pretty good job.

    37. Re:Easy fix by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      | If their union is so powerful, how come they're subject to routine monitoring in this way at work?

      Because Federal Justices are not subject to the need to be re-elected.

    38. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the reality is...in NOT charging them, the law is being applied differently.

      Yes, the current situation is unjust. So is the suggestion that police officers be held to a higher standard.

      No one ever said justice was easy. It is actually extremely difficult. Most folks can be quite unjust in their thinking without even noticing.

    39. Re:Easy fix by lgw · · Score: 2

      Yes, those 99% bad cops sure give the 1% good cops a bad name! A cop who knows his buddy is on the take, or otherwise breaking the rules but goes along with it is still a bad cop, because his freaking job is to enforce the rules.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    40. Re:Easy fix by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Are you perfect?

    41. Re:Easy fix by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the current situation is unjust. So is the suggestion that police officers be held to a higher standard.

      Wait, what? We give the police the power to arrest, injure and even kill us without consequence, to accuse us and have their word taken over ours in a court of law, and we're not supposed to hold them to a higher standard? Are you completely out of your mind?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    42. Re:Easy fix by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      My thinking is that if the monitoring equipment is not functioning, all arrest, charges and tickets made/performed during the nonfunctioning period are nullified. It won't help stop these officers from taking drug money, bribes, and generally being LA cops, but it at least incorporates a minimal level of protection for the citizens. And the good news is, it won't impact good cops much at all, except to blow an arrest from time to time, assuming someone is dumb enough to approach a cop car and try to vandalize it. Which, frankly, I doubt happens very much. Particularly in LA.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    43. Re:Easy fix by man+bear+nerd · · Score: 1

      Which part of above the law did you not get. Their punishment is time off with pay. Must be a way of disabling it without damage it must require a power source.

    44. Re:Easy fix by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The punishment is time off with pay? Man, I wish I was punished that way a lot more often than just during the few days of paid vacation I have.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    45. Re:Easy fix by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      True, but why should that suddenly matter?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    46. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article claims that they check the antennas before and after each shift, so they would know as soon as one was missing, and give the bill to whoever had the car during that shift.

      In other news, every police car now comes with a roll of aluminum tinfoil. You know, to protect the antenna from being damaged during each shift. :)

      Remember when you could trust police to be honest and helpful? Pepperidge farm remembers, but that's about it. Any pigs reading this? This is why we don't trust you anymore. It's the 40% of you that spoil it for the other 60%. (To say nothing of the 60% good cops who cover for the 40% of bad cops because you want to know someone's got your back if you get into trouble some day... Guess what? That's the same mentality as the gangs you claim you're fighting.)

    47. Re:Easy fix by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      If their union is so powerful, how come they're subject to routine monitoring in this way at work?

      The union undoubtedly negotiated the terms for monitoring.
      For example, their bosses may not be allowed to use the records for disciplinary purposes if the microphone caught a cop saying "fuck the police commissioner and his lackeys"
      Or the bosses can't review the records unless it's required for a case.
      Those are just a couple of examples with wide reaching implications.

      That said, good luck finding the specifics of the union agreement.
      You might have to file an open records request or sue.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    48. Re:Easy fix by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > Yes, the current situation is unjust. So is the suggestion that police officers be held to a higher standard.

      While I agree with the general argument, in the specific I am not sure it holds. Unlike any other group that might be under consideration, police have taken an oath to uphold the law, and accept a paycheck to do the same. When they break the law, especially if they do so to willfully sabotage their own job, and do so on the clock or by making use of the privileges/access they are afforded as part of their jobs.... they really are doing something different that deserves different consideration and a different standard than an ordinary citizen who breaks the law.

      If I did the same thing they did, yes I would be charged with crimes....but I wouldn't be doing it after accepting a job and taking a paycheck specifically to uphold the very laws I am wilfully breaking. I wouldn't be using any special access (access to cruisers and equipment) or knowledge (which antena is which?) that I had, only as a result of accepting that job and taking that paycheck.

      If we were talking about off duty cops breaking a law unrelated to their day to day job, then I would agree, but that isn't what we are talking about at all.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    49. Re:Easy fix by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      As I finished that statement I realized we may not be in so much disagreement so much as a semantics battle.

      I conceede. You are absolutely correct, a different standard should NOT be applied. However, the fact that they are police should be considered an aggrivating circumstance: One which increases the enormity of the crime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

      So not a different standard at all, but a different punishment, because it is a more enormous crime...by the same standards.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    50. Re:Easy fix by FuzzyDustBall · · Score: 1

      Society at large... Is one of the worse bosses out their, selfish and schizophrenic.

    51. Re:Easy fix by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      The article claims that they check the antennas before and after each shift, so they would know as soon as one was missing, and give the bill to whoever had the car during that shift.

      So, that must mean the bacon in question is falsifying reports, right? Probably a little more serious than sending the guy a bill for the part. Perhaps a criminal offense?

    52. Re:Easy fix by thechemic · · Score: 1

      According to this, they have one of the HIGHEST MISCONDUCT rates in the nation. With "excessive force" being the primary misconduct being reported. http://www.targetmap.com/viewe... If you believe in correlations, I suppose we could assume that beating up citizens, abusing the public, and ignoring your own laws is good for the crime rate. As you pointed out, this method seems to be working for LA.

      --
      Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
    53. Re:Easy fix by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      Judges are absolutly a major problem with our police force. The very idea that they take a police officer's word over non-police officer's word sets up a massive inbalance in our legal system that much of our police problems stems from.

    54. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are the fucking police. If they provably are patently unwilling (no, not unable) to get rid of the bad ones in their own ranks, how the fuck are people going to be able to trust them to do a decent job on the streets?

      Provably dishonest cops should be fired on the spot, never to be able to return. That's how they do it where I live, and it works. Mind you, most of the bad ones are removed due to failing any of a plethora of varied personality tests and evaluations during the bachelor degree equivalent education they receive in the police academy.

    55. Re:Easy fix by steelfood · · Score: 1

      reform isn't really beneficial to anyone powerful since it just hurts everyone in power and no one powerfulgets ahead by enacting it.

      FTFY. Oversight benefits us, the little people. It benefits people who are subject to institutionalized discrimination. And occasionally, it may even benefit the people being monitored, when it's the other side overreacting. But it doesn't benefit the congressman who gets let off for driving 100 in a 35, or his teenage son for that matter.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    56. Re:Easy fix by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously comparing most people's "imperfections" with "accessory after the fact" and "conspiracy to X", where X is bribery, battery, murder and the like?

      Covering up for fellow officers' crimes is not even in the same ballgame as promising to take out the garbage and forgetting.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    57. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, not if their pay is inconsequential to their lifestyle which is funded by the other activities that are caused those mysterious broken/missing equipment.

    58. Re:Easy fix by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      A cop who knows his buddy is on the take, or otherwise breaking the rules but goes along with it is still a bad cop

      "Otherwise breaking the rules" includes such things a letting a friend off a speeding ticket, accepting a doughnut from a merchant, etc. Most police transgressions fall far below "bribery, battery, murder and the like". There is also a huge difference between "knowing" and "hearing on the grape vine".

    59. Re:Easy fix by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Unions work to protect workers from a bad boss.

      Unions work to maximize their own profits. everything else is secondary. They are a business that employs people, same as every other company, even the ones they are paid to protect their members from.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    60. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, ours aren't subject to this kind of monitoring. We don't even have an effective oversight person/committee with any power after we voted in that requirement.

      Union said no.......

    61. Re: Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or basically, throw out all evidence and testimony of cops who did not have this gear functioning (and able to provide recording evidence to the court). Maybe they will take better care of their gear next time. Or have redundant recording gear. Until then, innocent until PROVEN guilty.

    62. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a police officer and I have the ability to rob you of your constitutional rights any time I feel like it. I'm allowed to carry a gun too, and have the authority to invoke a citizens' arrest.

      And you know this how? Cite?

      You don't.. take your boot licking sociopathic pussified ass out of here, motherfucker.

    63. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anything, cops need to be held to the letter of the law more strictly than those of us who are not tasked with enforcing it.

      Justice is never found in applying the law differently to different groups.

      Yet cops apply the law differently to different groups as a matter of course: affluent vs. poor, white vs. non-white, powerful vs. powerless, and especially cops vs. non-cops. In this way, cops are one of the greatest causes of injustice in our society.

    64. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For any officer found with damaged or missing recording equipment, suspend without pay or confine to desk jockey. Unacceptable to claim equipment is broken or doesn't work so the policy goes to the wayside.

      I'm sure that would get the full support of the police union, too.

      NOT.

      The post-1990s style places NOTs inline: "I'm sure that would NOT get the full support of the police union, too."

    65. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you perfect?

      Cops are no more perfect than the people whose lives they ruin — they simply lack the get-out-of-everything-free badge that their victims lack.

    66. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I'm sure there are many fictional people they do that to (it's easy to create a fictional element) what about the provable, documented ones? Or are you seriously suggesting none of that ever actually happened?

    67. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd get the same fair trial they give to the fictional people they murder and beat and frame for crimes they never committed.

      Fixed that for you.

      In a way, I think you're right: Cops probably don't view the people they murder, beat, and frame as actual people. They're targets to be shot, with no more value (to the trigger-happy, 'roid-raging, armed thugs with badges) than the paper targets they perforate in the shooting gallery down at the pig pen. The differences are that the targets at the pig pen show the front of their targets, while the targets in the residential shooting galleries (streets, roadsides, sidewalks, etc.) move, and shouldn't be filmed being shot (sometimes (as we've seen reported) in the back and/or on their knees or laying face-down).

      —cffrost

    68. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to this, they have one of the HIGHEST MISCONDUCT rates in the nation. With "excessive force" being the primary misconduct being reported.
      https://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=6482

      If you believe in correlations, I suppose we could assume that beating up citizens, abusing the public, and ignoring your own laws is good for the crime rate. As you pointed out, this method seems to be working for LA.

      Thank you for your comment and interesting link.

      PROTIPs to other security-conscious readers:
          targetmap.com supports HTTPS (I modified thechemic's link).
          RequestPolicy must allow targetmap.com to access mapquest.com and mqcdn.com, but mapquestapi.com isn't needed.
          NoScript white-listing may be needed, depending on your settings.
          Flash is required.

    69. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] braking the antenna [...]

      The only kind of antennae I'm aware of that use brakes are those large, heavy, rotating radar dishes. Placing one of those on a cop car would probably render the car inoperable.

    70. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. But I don't go round with a gun and permission to use it in any way I goddam like.

    71. Re:Easy fix by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      It isn't necessary to hold them to a higher standard.

      Let's not muddy the issue here. The issue is that they are never held to any semblance of a similar standard as everyone else.

      The other aspect of this issue that is not lost on me is the necessity and mechanisms of having a police force like the LAPD. Take a look at why and how it is it has operated the way it does for so long and why.

      The degree of corruption any police force maintains within is directly proportional to the degree of corruption and lawlessness it is expected to attempt to control.

    72. Re:Easy fix by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      ok, you are completely out of your mind.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    73. Re:Easy fix by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      I guess it's too complicated for you.

      If your local police force is corrupt it is because not enough people have made an effort to improve it.

      If it stays corrupt it means that somebody's benefiting from the corruption. Maybe probably you.

      This shit doesn't happen in a vacuum.

    74. Re:Easy fix by metaforest · · Score: 1

      You have a good point there. They are called 'Officers' because they are officers of the court. They have the same status as any lawyer or judge in the court system.

  2. Should be punished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There should be strict rules in place that any equipment malfunctions or damage must be reported as soon as reasonably possible, or sever penalties will result. Of course, the police union would fight this tooth and nail.

    1. Re:Should be punished by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do they know it is malfunctioning? It wouldn't surprise me if the system was designed to be tamper-resistant, so they may not have even read-only access to the data collected so they can't even sanity check if it is working.

      Maybe an obviously broken antenna would indicate that it wasn't working, but I would imagine that might be assuming a lot about their technical knowledge and they may reasonably assume that some minor damage to an antenna doesn't mean its broken, based on experience with other antennas on other equipment.

      I'm sure there's some deliberate malice going on here on some level, but then again, making them wholly responsible for the ongoing technical functionality of equipment they have little or no control or diagnostic ability or skill to manage would be reasonably objectionable.

      There's also the unintended consequence of overly-severe penalties, one of which may be over-reporting potential damage due to the risks of not reporting it. The last thing you want is half the cars in a sector sitting in the motor pool and the officers unavailable for calls because they don't know if their widgets are broken.

    2. Re:Should be punished by Thanshin · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually no, as you'd know if you had studied the subject, the law does not apply to the police.

      As a mnemonic rule, imagine they were oddly dressed politicians, or very humble rich people.

    3. Re:Should be punished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add transmitters that send a peridic signal of the location to the base through the same mean and monitor that signal from home. You soon will get a very good map of where there's no reception (blocked by buildings, landscape etc) and what scumbags repeatedly have their antennas "broken".
      You to not even have to make the individual raw data accessible by anyone, just throwing out "who" and "timestamp" when the signal broke is going to be enough if running for a few months.

      This of course requires that someone wants the problem to be fixed.

    4. Re:Should be punished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Apart from that there is not reason to go hard on the police officers. There is a simple social solution when problems like this arise.
      Split them up. It works on bullies, criminal gangs and neo-nazis.

      Relocate them to cities that doesn't have this problem and make sure that none of them works with each other.
      Once they are partnered up with honest people and only honest people the undesired behavior will go away.
      After a couple of years the can be brought back.

      That way the problem disappears without the need to break necks or even prove anything.

      -- methane-fueled

    5. Re:Should be punished by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Apart from that there is not reason to go hard on the police officers. There is a simple social solution when problems like this arise.
      Split them up. It works on bullies, criminal gangs and neo-nazis.

      Relocate them to cities that doesn't have this problem and make sure that none of them works with each other.
      Once they are partnered up with honest people and only honest people the undesired behavior will go away.
      After a couple of years the can be brought back.

      That way the problem disappears without the need to break necks or even prove anything.

      -- methane-fueled

      Putting even the most honest and trustworthy people into a system of power doesn't guarantee that there will be no abuses -- even honest people abuse their power.

      But knowing that someone is looking over your shoulder at all times with surveillance *can* reduce abuses since a cop can't claim "He threatened me!" if no threat was captured on the surveillance device.

    6. Re:Should be punished by arth1 · · Score: 1

      There's also the unintended consequence of overly-severe penalties, one of which may be over-reporting potential damage due to the risks of not reporting it. The last thing you want is half the cars in a sector sitting in the motor pool and the officers unavailable for calls because they don't know if their widgets are broken.

      No, that's not the last thing you want. The last thing you want are responders who beat up people based on whether they like them, or lie about what suspects said and ruin lives.

      I think this can be remedied by having them test the gear every time they enter active status. Not "potential damage", but actual testing.
      If pilots have to check their gear before flying, I don't think it's too much to ask that armed officers do the same. They are responsible for people's lives too.

    7. Re:Should be punished by Collective+0-0009 · · Score: 1

      Really? Run this when the cop clocks out:

      SELECT count(id) FROM voicelog WHERE copid = 123 AND date = Now()
      If it isn't greater than 0, flag it.

      If they went to the trouble to make it tamper resistant, they probably went through the trouble to write a basic script to test it was reporting the data correctly. I do this on stuff that is way less important than tracking notoriously corrupt cops.

      --
      I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
    8. Re:Should be punished by sjames · · Score: 1

      Simple answer, if the recorder isn't working, any complaint against the officer will be presumed true. Then make sure the officers have a way to test the equipment. You can bet that they will.

    9. Re:Should be punished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The union could raise a stink but the monitoring devices were installed to get the court ordered D.O.J. oversight off their backs, which is far worse, I can imagine if the court continues to see this type of vandalism/obstruction of microphones and antennas they could easily re-institute the federal oversight.

    10. Re:Should be punished by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      On a government project? Don't count on specs containing many sanity checks.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Should be punished by metaforest · · Score: 1

      bullshit. They have a desktop class PC computer in the passenger seat. There is no way you can tell me they do not have the tools to detect a loss of connectivity. WiFi, BlueTooth.... RF whatever.... they are in contact.... loss of streams is reportable, and detectable at the moment that loss occurs. No excuses.

  3. Convenient malfunctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone remember the police beating case in Maryland where the dash cams of ALL SEVEN police cars on the scene simultaneously malfunctioned? Accountability is not a thing many officers appreciate.

    1. Re:Convenient malfunctions by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      Anyone remember the police beating case in Maryland where the dash cams of ALL SEVEN police cars on the scene simultaneously malfunctioned?

      No ... and a Google search turns up nothing. Can you provide a reference?

    2. Re:Convenient malfunctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here it is - "Andrea McCarren, an investigative reporter with WJLA-TV, is suing Prince George's County Police for $500,000, alleging officers violated her rights and injured her in April 2005." http://www.wtop.com/?nid=428&sid=1116072

    3. Re:Convenient malfunctions by kaoshin · · Score: 4, Informative
    4. Re:Convenient malfunctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here it is - "Andrea McCarren, an investigative reporter with WJLA-TV, is suing Prince George's County Police for $500,000, alleging officers violated her rights and injured her in April 2005." http://www.wtop.com/?nid=428&sid=1116072

    5. Re:Convenient malfunctions by InsultsByThePound · · Score: 1

      Maybe the 4th example down? http://reason.com/blog/2010/08...

    6. Re:Convenient malfunctions by hawguy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Anyone remember the police beating case in Maryland where the dash cams of ALL SEVEN police cars on the scene simultaneously malfunctioned?

      No ... and a Google search turns up nothing. Can you provide a reference?

      Here's a reference:

      http://www.wtop.com/?nid=428&s...

      Seven cars responded, all required to have dashcams, yet somehow no dashcam footage of the incident was available.

      And here's an article with links to other cases where police video disappeared:

      http://www.theagitator.com/201...

      And I found it with my first Google search for

    7. Re:Convenient malfunctions by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Maybe Google is malfunctioning. Don't worry, it happens about half the time.

    8. Re:Convenient malfunctions by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      The WTOP article drops the story in 2007.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      The Wikipedia article tell us that the case went to court -- you know, like when you feel you've been wronged, and you put the people who wronged you on trial, and the thing is judged by a jury of your peers (normal people not cops), and the jury awarded $5,000 in damages -- the size of some medical bills.

      A jury -- of normal people -- thought, after getting much more insight into this case than you or I, that the cops were a little rough on her, and nothing more.

      Finally, the case is nearly A DECADE OLD.

      What's next? Some cases where a firehose got turned on the colored in Mississippi?

    9. Re:Convenient malfunctions by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      A jury awarded her 5k (not 500k), and found the police that officers acted appropriately in conducting a "high-risk" stop .

      If you're going to tell the story, at least add the conclusion.

    10. Re:Convenient malfunctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police won. She got $5000 in damages in 2009 only for excessive force.

    11. Re:Convenient malfunctions by hawguy · · Score: 1

      The WTOP article drops the story in 2007.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      The Wikipedia article tell us that the case went to court -- you know, like when you feel you've been wronged, and you put the people who wronged you on trial, and the thing is judged by a jury of your peers (normal people not cops), and the jury awarded $5,000 in damages -- the size of some medical bills.

      A jury -- of normal people -- thought, after getting much more insight into this case than you or I, that the cops were a little rough on her, and nothing more.

      It seems like that's the problem -- the evidence that should have proved her story was non-existent because *seven* police cameras (cameras that we all paid for with our taxes and were *required* to be running due to a settlement with the DoJ) somehow malfunctioned and did not capture any video. How many cameras do you think would have malfunctioned if they backed up the story of the police? All the jury had to go on was her testimony and the testimony of 7+ police officers. I wonder if anyone involved had any vested interest in lying about the events?

      Finally, the case is nearly A DECADE OLD.

      What's next? Some cases where a firehose got turned on the colored in Mississippi?

      7 years ago doesn't seem like that long ago, but are you really holding up past discrimination against blacks by those in authority as a good example of why the past doesn't matter?

    12. Re:Convenient malfunctions by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      ...7 years ago doesn't seem like that long ago...

      April 15, 2005 is almost 9 years ago on the nose. Nearly a decade by most measures. 10 years have made a difference. Cops used to tune people up pretty regularly in the 60's, 70's, 80's... and it tapered off a lot. I know things have happened to good people since then, but picking 2005 cases that went to a jury aren't exactly making a great case.

      All the jury had to go on was her testimony and the testimony of 7+ police officers.

      Again, they had at least as much information as we had - and they awarded her a small sum, presumably because they thought the slight was minor - cameras and all. They could have awarded the $500,000 she was seeking, but they didn't. Why is our Monday morning quarterbacking of the jury special?

      Andrea McCarran was a bad example.

    13. Re:Convenient malfunctions by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The conclusion is the cops lied and because their was no video, the judge and jury bought it.

      Now we're discussing an actual fix. Please try to follow along.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Convenient malfunctions by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      and they awarded her a small sum, presumably because they thought the slight was minor - cameras and all

      No. It is because there was no evidence that the slight was enormous. A variant of "innocent until proven guilty".

      That, in turn, is because it is not punishable in any sense of the word to intentionally damage cameras/surveillance devices. So they were damaged - a variant of "you get what you measure".

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    15. Re:Convenient malfunctions by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      It is because there was no evidence that the slight was enormous.

      Now we agree completely.

    16. Re:Convenient malfunctions by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Destruction/prevention of evidence FTW!!!

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  4. Gomer Pyle responds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  5. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Who will watch the watchers? It's clear that "nobody" is the answer the watchers would prefer...

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  6. Data mining to find the culprits? by DigitAl56K · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder if the damage was reported and tracked over time, and if you could correlate this with who was assigned the equipment immediately prior? The results would probably paint a good heat map against the list of officers as to what subset was behind the damage.

    1. Re:Data mining to find the culprits? by acheong87 · · Score: 1

      Asking because I have no clue... Is this the kind of information that can be requested via the FOIA?

  7. The simple solution is make them document it by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is possible people are vandalizing the cars (in general and though the public would vandalize ALL the antennas, not just one). The simple solution is make the officers report any damage and fill out paperwork indicating the cause. If they go a day with broken equipment unreported they're suspended without pay for day the first time with a day added per occurrence and fired after 5. If it's a repeated occurrence with an officer they should be monitored in secret by IA to observe if the officer is doing the damage themselves and if they are they should be fired and prosecuted for damaging government property. If the cars are being vandalized by the public they need better antennas that are vandal resistant.

    1. Re:The simple solution is make them document it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh hi rahvin112, that was a very logical and well thought out approach to solve a nasty and unnecessary problem. Let me introduce you to the police union.

    2. Re:The simple solution is make them document it by Gramie2 · · Score: 2

      I suppose it's theoretically possible that vandals are risking arrest to remove -- and not break or damage -- a single antenna (out of the several on a cruiser), the one antenna that could embarrass or implicate officers in inappropriate/illegal behaviour, but it's ludicrous to suggest that it is likely or even probable.

    3. Re:The simple solution is make them document it by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is possible people are vandalizing the cars

      Sure, but... "new rules were put in place requiring officers to document that both antennas were in place at the beginning and end of each shift. To guard against officers removing the antennas during their shifts, Tingirides said he requires patrol supervisors to make unannounced checks on cars."

      "Since the new protocols went into place, only one antenna has been found missing,"

      As soon as it became likely that the vandalism be caught, the vandalism suddenly dropped to almost zero despite the fact that only the officers knew of the change.

      So no... it's not possible that the public is vandalizing the cars.

    4. Re:The simple solution is make them document it by Solandri · · Score: 1

      It is possible people are vandalizing the cars

      Sure, but... "new rules were put in place requiring officers to document that both antennas were in place at the beginning and end of each shift. To guard against officers removing the antennas during their shifts, Tingirides said he requires patrol supervisors to make unannounced checks on cars."

      "Since the new protocols went into place, only one antenna has been found missing,"

      As soon as it became likely that the vandalism be caught, the vandalism suddenly dropped to almost zero despite the fact that only the officers knew of the change.

      I wouldn't read too much into that. The article doesn't mention specific timeframes. Only that:

      • - The cars have been equipped with the cameras and antennas since 2010.
      • - Some time after July 2013, a check revealed 72 of 160 antennas had been removed.
      • - Only one antenna has been removed since new protocols were put into place.

      If you figure they first installed the antennas in mid-2010, then they were disappearing at a rate of 24 per year, or about two per month.

      So whether the new protocols really improved the situation depends on when they were implemented. If they were implemented in (say) September and only one antenna has gone missing in 6 months, then yes it's improved. If they were implemented last month, then one antenna going missing in a month is not statistically different from 2 per month. Given the information in the article, it's impossible to say which is correct.

      (It's a bit more complicated than this because the rate at which the antennas were being removed, whether by officers or vandals, would be proportional to the number of antennas in place. More antennas = more opportunity to remove them. So this favors the interpretation that the new policies are really helping out the situation, since presumably they replaced all the missing antennas. But without a specific timeframe it's hard to draw any conclusions about their efficacy.)

    5. Re:The simple solution is make them document it by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

      There is a technical solution for this.
      Have the system report back a heartbeat with status.
      It's done today to report back when an antenna is disconnected. GPS receivers can do this. It's probably due to the change in impedance. In a system that has multiple antennas, checking the change and reporting it back o a certain location is fairly quick and simple.

      Any car out in the field that fails a heartbeat should mandate that it come back in for servicing immediately.

      Manual random checks or filing out paperwork is just plain outdated.

    6. Re:The simple solution is make them document it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So no... it's not possible that the public is vandalizing the cars.

      Possible, yes, probable, no.

    7. Re:The simple solution is make them document it by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      There's also no indication if 50 of them got pulled off in protest in month 1, and most have remained working since.

    8. Re:The simple solution is make them document it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please state your source

  8. The Law by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ha. Please find me someone with more contempt and disdain for the law than.... law enforcement! Shocked they would be breaking rules. What's next?

    --
    Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
    1. Re:The Law by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Politicians. Just about every law passed by Congress has a clause at the end stating that Congress is exempt from it. That's always struck me as a perverse loophole which could be horribly exploited. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

      Speaking of which, if there's one group of public employees who should be video recorded in all their daily activities and meetings, it's politicians. If all their meetings with lobbyists were required by law to be recorded and streamed to the public, things might actually start improving.

    2. Re:The Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll get this antenna when you pry it out my cold dead hands

  9. Just goes to show by syntheticmemory · · Score: 1

    Cops and criminals come from the same backgrounds...

  10. Laws by DaMattster · · Score: 0

    Are nothing more than impediments to a police officer. They think they are above the law, and unfortunately, most times they are. :-(

    1. Re:Laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They think they are above the law,

      Not exactly.

  11. How would you like it? by chuckugly · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How would you like to have your every move and word recorded and transmitted by your employer every second of every working day? I don't condone police abuse but this level of intrusion seems extreme to me.

    1. Re:How would you like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You won't get a lot of sympathy around here. The Slashdot groupthink is that "the bad officers give the other .01% a bad name."
      I've long wondered why this is. I used to think it meant we had much more than our fair share of potheads.
      But I think there's something more to it than that. Anyway, it's just another one of the unthinking prejudices of this self-proclaimed rational crowd.

    2. Re:How would you like it? by Scutter · · Score: 1

      Pretty much every retail employee on the planet already has to deal with this, but without the ability to have a mysterious hardware failure at (in)convenient times.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    3. Re:How would you like it? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How would you like to have your every move and word recorded and transmitted by your employer every second of every working day?

      Nothing about my day job provides for use of force, arrest, and charging people with criminal acts which could lead to their incarceration.

      Given the history of abuses from the LAPD (and lots of other PDs) ... the stakes are much higher, and we've passed the point where we can just assume all police are honest.

      So, you'll forgive me if I don't go all "boo hoo" about the level of tracking being applied to them. We see plenty enough stories which indicate cops can often have very little regard (or understanding) of the law.

      Quite frankly, I don't believe there's enough tracking of police officers.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:How would you like it? by Lazere · · Score: 1

      If you work in retail or banking, you do. That was the case at my last job. Why is it recording gas station attendants who have the authority to do absolutely nothing is ok, but recording police officers who have the authority to shoot somebody if need be isn't?

    5. Re:How would you like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you like to have your every move and word recorded and transmitted by your employer every second of every working day? I don't condone police abuse but this level of intrusion seems extreme to me.

      Most of us don't hold a job that allows us to use lethal force against our employers, their employers being "we, the people."

    6. Re:How would you like it? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      I neither agree nor disagree with your point because there is an unclear factor to me -- nature of work. The nature of police work in this case is similar to a field work (outside the office) which is very difficult to have a good quality control system. Of course, you would need to give a lee way and at the same time has a certain trust level to these people. For an office work, it is a lot different because the employer would have more control on quality check. So the monitoring may or may not be a bad quality control system for the police.

    7. Re:How would you like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You won't get a lot of sympathy around here. The Slashdot groupthink is that "the bad officers give the other .01% a bad name."

      If a single officer misbehaves and commits criminal acts and this goes on for a long time without any other officer intervening, are the other officers doing their job?
      I'm not saying that there aren't any good police officers in that district but it certainly seems like they are in a such small minority that they can't stand up to the bad ones.
      Perhaps it would be more fair to say that "the bad officers give the other 49% a bad name?"

      I still have a hard time believing that a good officer would enjoy working under such circumstances. They have probably quit or relocated.

    8. Re:How would you like it? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2

      Pretty much every retail employee on the planet already has to deal with this, but without the ability to have a mysterious hardware failure at (in)convenient times.

      This. There are cameras in my office, if I went around cutting the wires to each camera I would no longer have a job and would probably be brought up on criminal charges. Our security department also has the ability to monitor my computer at any time. People in tons of different professions are monitored while they are working and many are tested to determine if they are doing company-prohibited activities while not at work. There is no reason why police should be excluded from the same kind of surveillance. In fact, many people would argue that there is a more compelling interest in monitoring police than almost any other profession.

      --

      Enigma

    9. Re:How would you like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When someone is in control of other people's lives, they do not deserve privacy while on the job.

      Period.

    10. Re:How would you like it? by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      That's fair, I just know I wouldn't like it, and I also know what the usual /. opinion of surveillance is. Some jobs or activities probably require it, but I'm not sure that pervasive big bothering is the optimal solution for police misconduct.

    11. Re:How would you like it? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      GP has it right. The bad officers give the other 0.001% a bad name.

      He's wrong that it's incorrect. About 0.001% of cops will actually do something about a crooked cop in their ranks. The rest are crooked.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:How would you like it? by Arker · · Score: 1

      "How would you like to have your every move and word recorded and transmitted by your employer every second of every working day?"

      Well consider that's exactly what happens for me and many others every day at work, it's obviously something people can cope with.

      "I don't condone police abuse but this level of intrusion seems extreme to me."

      You seem a bit out of touch. LOTS of people have every word recorded while they are working. LOTS of people that have far less opportunity to abuse their position than a policeman does.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    13. Re:How would you like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you like to have your every move and word recorded and transmitted by your employer every second of every working day? I don't condone police abuse but this level of intrusion seems extreme to me.

      Intrusion... into what? Their privacy while they conduct public affairs? The personal garbage they shouldn't be talking about on the clock? My employer has every right to watch me for every second he paid for. It's sold - it's HIS time now.

    14. Re:How would you like it? by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      I agree people cope with it; do you think it's good thing and people should just cope with it?

    15. Re:How would you like it? by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Every retail employee on the planet has to wear a wire and have every second of their conversations recorded and stored during their working hours? Citation really needed for that one.

    16. Re:How would you like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because gas stations can tell their employees that it is to stop/catch robbers, and while it does help in that regard management knows it is much more important to keep an eye on the employees..

    17. Re:How would you like it? by Arker · · Score: 1

      Of course it adds a level of stress, but as long as it ceases when I clock out for the day, and there is a legitimate need, I just figure it's one of the reasons I am getting paid. That's why we call it work, not play, you take on stress and you get paid.

      If I were a cop, you know, frankly I think I would probably be in favor of making certain that I and every coworker was being recorded every minute we were on shift. To protect myself as much as to protect the public.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    18. Re:How would you like it? by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, one in 100,000.

      Hyperbole FTW.

    19. Re:How would you like it? by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      I could see the protection in having my "official interactions" recorded, and I can get behind that in theory too, but I'd still hesitate to give a complete thumbs up to the "you have to wear a wire continuously" level of intrusion. It really seems excessive. Perhaps if there were assurances that legal barriers existed on who/how the data could be accessed then it would be a lot more palatable.

    20. Re:How would you like it? by Zargg · · Score: 1

      I could see the protection in having my "official interactions" recorded, and I can get behind that in theory too, but I'd still hesitate to give a complete thumbs up to the "you have to wear a wire continuously" level of intrusion. It really seems excessive. Perhaps if there were assurances that legal barriers existed on who/how the data could be accessed then it would be a lot more palatable.

      If a cop has a uniform on (wired up) and is driving around in a cruiser interacting with the public, then every interaction is an "official interaction". My small talk at work can get me in trouble if I say the wrong things, why would an officers small talk while on the job be protected?

    21. Re:How would you like it? by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Is your small talk recorded and can people review it at any time? If so I recommend a new job.

    22. Re:How would you like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite so. My firm position is that the more power someone has over the lives of others, whether directly or indirectly, the more scrutinized and accountable they should be.

      In the case of law enforcement, that means being able to account for your actions, in a verifiable manner, where verifiable means through a separate mechanism that cannot be forged, like a mandatory recording device.

      In the case of politics, that means having each and every vote, lobbyist meeting, business connection and/or other relations/actions logged and publicly available for scrutiny.

      With power comes responsibility. Or rather, with power *should* come responsibility. We need *far* more of it.

      Don't like it? Then you shouldn't *be* in a position of power in the first place.

  12. Futile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From TFA: "Because cars in the Southeast Division had been equipped with cameras since 2010 and different shifts of officers use the same car each day, officials decided an investigation into the missing antennas would have been futile, according to Smith and Capt. Phil Tingirides, the commanding officer of the Southeast Division."

    I do not believe that this is possible. Given the number of officers, and the number of damaged cars, and the number of undamaged cars, and the log book, most of us could tell you who the culprits are before we get through our first 16oz cup of coffee.

    1. Re:Futile? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      I used to work at an auto parts store where someone was stealing from the registers. Since we had just hired a guy back after going to jail (presumably for something he didn't do), all eyes were on him. It was a slow night, so my co-worker and I took a look at the shift logs and who worked 1-2 shifts before the money was found missing (because it had safe drops, you couldn't always tell the next shift).

      It took us about 20 minutes to find the culprit. It was totally easy. So this is complete BS.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Futile? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Oh, I believe it is possible. Because I believe that it was designed to make it difficult to determine who was responsible for the missing antennas.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:Futile? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Better than that I would think - if these devices are being used to continuously monitor the cops for their own and the public protection, then the data is being recorded somewhere. Break the data link and the recording stops (or devolves to static). So, go back and see what the last thing recorded was, that should narrow the list of suspects immensely.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Futile? by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Finish the story. Was it the guy you suspected or was there a twist?

    5. Re:Futile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd be surprised if it was him if he just came back from jail and people knew. Perfect fall guy.

    6. Re:Futile? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      so... was it the man who just got out? or was it a different employee

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:Futile? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Good point. However, if he was caught and imprisoned because he DID commit the crime...well...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    8. Re:Futile? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The problem is proving it was the officers and not someone else. Because there is always a reasonable doubt unless you catch them in the act or make the documentation requirements so thorough that you can catch them lying. By making them fill out paperwork at the start and end of every shift they made it easy to catch them doing it so all but one stopped doing it.

    9. Re:Futile? by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      Where I live the Police do an inspection of the vehicle at each hand off (You get to see everything they do during a ride along). They run the lights, look through the interior, and walk around the car to check for damage. How hard would it be to add checking the dash cam to the checklist? Does the system not have a self diagnostic check? Again where I live the radio system in the cars have one.

    10. Re:Futile? by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Do we really expect police officers to know how to investigate a theft? It's clearly futile as he says.

  13. Abuse? Doubtful by GrBear · · Score: 0

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    Working with police officers regularly, there's a joke that goes around that goes like this.

    Put a cop naked in a padded room with two steel ball bearings. Go back after an hour, one ball bearing will be broken and the other will be missing.

    1. Re:Abuse? Doubtful by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

      I'll bet whoever came up with that was one malicious motherfucker.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Abuse? Doubtful by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      When I was in the Marine Corps, we said that about our officers. I'm sure many others have used that joke.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:Abuse? Doubtful by ichthus · · Score: 1

      Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

      Maybe the first time, or the second. But when there's a pattern of obvious and blatant refusal of compliance, suspicion should certainly direct one's course of action. How else to find the truth?

      --
      sig: sauer
    4. Re:Abuse? Doubtful by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Actually, I hear he was a bit of an idiot.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  14. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody should be constantly monitored. Be that at work or in private.

    That's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't live in a totalitarian state or the US.

    Society allows police officers to use violence against members of society. They are supposed to only use that privilege under certain circumstances, but many officers have already demonstrated poor judgement and used violence when they should not of used it. The point of these cameras is to provide a control against people who can legally assault the public (police officers) as well as give officers a defense if they are ever accused of using violence inappropriately. This monitoring is necessary because police have already shown themselves to be irresponsible. Any police officer that is intentionally interfering with the recordings should be charged with destruction of evidence.

  15. Malcontent: by onproton · · Score: 1

    March marred by mysteriously missing misconduct monitoring machines.

    1. Re:Malcontent: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mysteriously-missing misconduct monitoring machines mar march

      FTFY

    2. Re:Malcontent: by onproton · · Score: 1

      Marvelous!

    3. Re:Malcontent: by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Meh, methinks maybe more m's might be made mandatory, mostly managing mellifluous meter and mode. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  16. What did you expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Did you think that the most corrupt, malevolent police force in the country would just roll over and let something intended to make them accountable actually do its job?

  17. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by Gramie2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm pretty sure that people who work in retail are basically on camera all the time, certainly when they in the public areas of the store. In private, of course they should not be monitored. Unless, perhaps, you count ankle monitors that some convicted felons wear as an alternative to being in prison.

    If you were in England, you would be on some of the estimated 6 million surveillance cameras: 70,000 operated by the police, 300,000+ by schools, 13,000 by the London Tube, etc., and most of the rest private individuals and corporations.

    Given the track record of police abuses in the U.S., and the dramatic [fall in complaints about police behaviour](http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-cameras-police-use-force), plus the usefulness of having on-the-spot video evidence against criminals, I would support mandatory cameras for all of them.

  18. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by azadrozny · · Score: 2

    Tell that to someone who works in a casino, or a bank. Sometimes the cameras are there to protect the employee, sometimes the employer, sometimes both.

  19. I'm shocked, shocked! by Ravensfire · · Score: 1

    I'm shocked, shocked that the LAPD would try to hide their behavior so they could keep acting like asshats.

    --
    "But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
  20. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by dbc · · Score: 2

    LAPD is notorious for corruption and officer abuse. What is *your* plan to fix that?

  21. You get right on that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is like wondering if Campbell's Makes Soups.

  22. Simple Stunned by tiberus · · Score: 1

    Not that the LAPD is playing fast and loose with the equipment (okay that this level of poor behavior is being allowed to continue is inconceivable) but, that the equipment isn't self monitoring and reporting. I mean really, they are under the watchful (and apparently sleepy) eye of the DoJ and no one thought to add a monitoring feature? The police have some of the most wired cars around and the tech to push or pull, at least, daily status reports on the health and activity of the recording systems wasn't included?

    Wow, even WOW, or OMFGWOW are not adequate to express my disdain.

    "Attitude reflects leadership, captain." Julius Campbell (Wood Harris), Remember the Titans (2000)

  23. "Safeguards" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the reasons by the LAPD was able to get off their babysitting by the feds was claiming that they had "safeguards" in place against abuse. It looks like those safeguards are being dismantled. It should also be noted that while the article touts how they have "fixed" the problem of missing antennas on the camera equipment but the last paragraph notes that dozens of the belt mics have been damaged/lost.

  24. Easy solution by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here is a simple rule. If a cop doesn't have an active recording device then he isn't a cop; he is just some guy waving a gun and threatening people. Also invalidate any evidence that a "cop" gathers while not on video and audio. So if a cop searches someone and "finds" drugs and there is no video then it didn't happen; that combined with the stop and frisk being considered a mugging these cops would be polishing the lenses and making sure the equipment was in perfect working order.

    1. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That seems extreme, but at least if there is no audio,
            then the citizen's story of what happened should be assumed correct unless the officer can prove otherwise with other, ordinary citizens.
      (Folks likely beholding to the cops/legal system aren't ordinary.)

      If the officer is faced with keeping the recording equipment working or finding another line of work, then that is probably sufficient.
            Maybe you get one bye every 5 years.
            The threat of jail time seems over the line.

    2. Re:Easy solution by Immerman · · Score: 1

      A fine proposal - though perhaps some allowance should be made in case the equipment is legitimately damaged in action - at which point the cop is still a cop for the duration of the current action, but all his claims are to be regarded with the same level of suspicion as any other eye-witness.

      Combine that with system health self-reporting and you should be good to go. A flashing warning alongside the car's overheat light? An immediate automated warning call from headquarters to their radio? It shouldn't be hard to come up with *something* convenient.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Easy solution by mrex · · Score: 1

      >It shouldn't be hard to come up with *something* convenient.

      It isn't hard, it's actually easy. These are all solved problems. The issue is that the powers that be don't want the problem to be solved, because it benefits them.

    4. Re:Easy solution by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      is it really though? could one not claim that they are "tempering with evidence"? I know when a person with drugs is running from the cops, and throws the drugs as he is running they charge him with tampering with evidence. As such if these cops are damaging or removing equipment that is important, couldnt you argue tampering with evidence?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Easy solution by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      Actually I would be black and white on this. Then abusing power would simply be way too hard. I would be perfectly happy that a cop could say stop and if you saw that he didn't have a camera that you could flip him the bird and walk away. If he tried stopping you then you could take him down like any nut job who tried to stop you from leaving. Then when he would say you resisted arrest you would say, I want him charged with assault and unlawful confinement. The judge would say, no camera, not a policeman.

      This would be great for these power hungry cops who pull out their badges when the bouncer tries to throw the bum out of a bar and other similar mini napoleon behavior.

    6. Re:Easy solution by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more in the case of a *specific* action - say a handful of cops conduct a relatively minor raid/arrest and one of them gets hit, breaking his recorder. Does that mean he immediately has to sit out the rest of the raid as a civilian, putting his comrades at elevated risk because they're now under-manned? I think that's asking a lot. On the other hand he should no longer be considered a cop for any *other* purpose not directly related to the raid in progress until he gets his recorder fixed. If he happens to pass an assault in progress on the way back to the station his authorization to intervene is limited to that of any other concerned citizen with a gun.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:Easy solution by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      I would say in the above case that the above cop was instantly demoted to helpful citizen. If the police are arresting someone and the guy is getting the better of them and you jump in and grab a leg, I am fairly sure that in most jurisdictions you would be fine. The key would be that he would have to fully recognize that he was no longer a cop. So no stop or I'll shoot. No telling people to get down. No putting handcuffs on people. Just assisting at most.

      The key is that a copy without a recorder is like you are walking down the street and say, "Hey buddy stop right there while I search you for drugs." then you have just mugged someone.

      Again the above provides the incentive for the cops to get recorders that aren't easily messed with.

      Another thing that should be is that a cop can only be a cop while in uniform and their badge number in large letters. A detective not in uniform should be an investigator but being not in uniform should have zero powers of arrest. This might seem odd but it prevents cops from wandering around threatening people with their arrest powers and guns.

  25. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by xevioso · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Pedantry is alive and well, it seems. I understood him just fine. Perhaps you should of not been so pedantic.

  26. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How is the person who made the error supposed to learn if nobody corrects him/her? Yes, pedantry gets annoying when done to excess, but being seen to be illiterate just because your peers were afraid to mention your mistake is cruel. If you were walking around with your fly open, would you be OK with everyone around you just assume that you're a pervert? Wouldn't you prefer that somebody mention that you should X-Y-Z until you get in the habit of checking your fly before you step out in public?

  27. Dual Standards by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

    I know that if I were to remove an antenna from a police cruiser that I would be in jail, quickly, likely bruised and beaten during the trip too. Why should it be different for the officers? Criminal vandalism charges, destruction of public property, obstruction, etc. etc. let the charges flow. Oh, wait, these are police, they're never (or at least very rarely) convicted of criminal charges for their actions, sorry for wasting your time....

  28. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Who will watch the watchers?

    In theory, that is the job of the free press.

  29. this: by globaljustin · · Score: 0

    I'd throw tampering and obstruction charges in on the second offense.

    hell yes.

    this is how you get government accountability! YOU FUCK THEM UP

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  30. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by Enigma2175 · · Score: 3

    Pedantry is alive and well, it seems. I understood him just fine. Perhaps you should of not been so pedantic.

    Well done sir! [sounds of applause]

    --

    Enigma

  31. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should be. When I read "not of used" my brain derailed a tiny bit until I realised what it was.

  32. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    And here is one of the reponses to that monitoring .

  33. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be that at work or in private.

    That's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't live in a totalitarian state or the US.

    That is why monitoring equipment should / is turned on when the lights are to monitor an event, not the hour to hour. If equipment isn't on or working, then anything done by the police should be suspect and likely thrown out.

  34. Power Corrupts by X!0mbarg · · Score: 1

    And Absolute Power is kinda nifty...

    It's amazing what happens to some people when they get a taste of power over others. Little wonder why there are cases of extortion and racketeering that happen by police officers in many cities. Once they get a taste, they're hooked, and it escalates.

    Why is it that many an off-duty police officer acts like a total a$$-hat, but pops a badge out of their butt when confronted by the proper authority to curb such behavior? They carry on as if they are Allowed to do the things they, themselves are required to prevent. After all, such things are Fun! At least, to some people...

    I'd cite examples, but there'd be info-burn from the Google results page...

    How many people would tamper with monitoring devices at their work, if they were under such constant scrutiny? Of course, there are laws preventing such devices in many places at work, such as washrooms, changerooms, and similar places. Needless to say why many employees tend to hang out there as much as possible.

    Bottom line is this: People in authority should Expect to be monitored for abuse! Gone are the days of power (on certain levels of civil service) putting you beyond reproach. that was then. This is now. It's been called the Information Age for a reason, folks.

    Welcome to the Glass House, Mr. Ford. Don't get too comfortable.

    Mayors of large, world-class cities have been getting away with things for a very long time in the past. Mostly because they knew when and how to do such things so as not to draw too much attention to themselves.Others see the office as goal, and a place where they have free reign to do whatever they want. Chances are, they were doing things before they had the office, but were simply emboldened to the point of carelessness by the authority they found themselves in. Can you imagine the scandals that would happen if a Mayors' Office was subjected to such constant monitoring? Don't get me wrong! Mayors of such cities have a Lot of things they have to deal with on a daily basis, that are best kept behind closed doors for public safety. Shame the crime-lords of the modern era don't suffer from nearly the same level of accountability as their elected counterparts...

    So, bottom line here: If you had such monitoring devices where you work, would you tamper with them for any reason? Would it be privacy, or some other reason that motivates you?

    What level of "privacy" do you expect from your work environment?

    Just Sayin'

  35. Fixed by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Informative

    It seems to have been fixed:

    Instead, warnings went out at roll-call meetings throughout South Bureau, and new rules were put in place requiring officers to document that both antennas were in place at the beginning and end of each shift. To guard against officers removing the antennas during their shifts, Tingirides said he requires patrol supervisors to make unannounced checks on cars.
    "We took the situation very seriously. But because the chances of determining who was responsible was so low we elected to move on," Smith said, adding that it cost the department about $1,500 to replace all the antennas.
    Since the new protocols went into place, only one antenna has been found missing, Smith said.

    1. Re:Fixed by operagost · · Score: 1

      Has that officer responsible for the one missing antenna been suspended, I wonder?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Fixed by taustin · · Score: 1

      NPR mentioned this morning that one officer has been disciplined since the new policy went in to effect. I assume it's the same one. They did not say how, and likely didn't know (and couldn't find out, as California has pretty strict privacy rights for employees being disciplined), but I seriously doubt it was more than a slap on the wrist for the first time. I suspect it was also made clear to the officer, and everyone else, that future offenses would have escalating consequences. Because, you see, this embarrasses the politicians, and costs the city money. LAPD has only very recently gotten out from under a federal supervision arrangement, and they do not want to get back. Even the unions are reluctant to push that.

  36. Note to self... by DdJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...do not rely on monitoring system that treats a complete lack of information as a complete absence of incidents.

  37. How many ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...LAPD officers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

    None. They just beat the room for being black.

  38. Golden Menus by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    As long as they can still hit the drive-thrus / fly-thrus, they'll be fine.

  39. Opportunity For Agreement by Bob9113 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    These law enforcement officers are experiencing the same thing we have been in the wake of the NSA documents. Being watched all the time is wrong even if you are doing nothing wrong.

    Anti-authoritarians think people should not be watched all the time, even though it would mean catching a few extra criminals. Law and order advocates think police should not be watched all the time, even though it would mean catching a few extra officers who abuse their position. If we believe that people intrinsically want to do good, the truth is they are both right.

    The premise of the United States experiment is that people can and should be trusted to do good most of the time -- despite the real risk and cost of doing so -- and should only be watched when it is justified. Merely being a police officer does not mean you are suspected of being a dirty cop. Merely being a person with one or another political viewpoint does not mean you are suspected of being a terrorist. Merely being a person from a certain socioeconomic class does not mean you are supected of committing a crime.

    In America, we presume innocence. That is not just a standard of the justice process, it means we trust our citizens -- whether acting as individuals, political activists, or police officers -- to do good. We believe in our citizens even when we are on opposite sides of a fence, and we know they believe in our society even when their expression of that belief differs from ours. When we have reasonable suspicion that they have violated that trust, we investigate them -- but not before.

    1. Re:Opportunity For Agreement by PPH · · Score: 2

      There are two requirements driving the need for monitoring systems. One is to catch the occasional 'bad cop'. True, most officers are contentious and try to behave ethically. But this is the major drive behind most of these systems. The other requirement is evidence collection. In spite of whatever our law enforcement and judiciary systems claim, police officers make mistakes. Or they are in a hurry or pumped up on adrenalin and their observational powers are hindered. Having a camera/mic running provides an objective view of incidents and in some cases, exonerates the actions of officers.

      The second case isn't emphasized to the same degree as the first. It is difficult to make an argument that a person with whom you work regularly (think judges and cops) is as fallible as the average citizen. It isn't that cops always intend to do evil. It has been demonstrated that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, whether they are 'trained' or not.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Opportunity For Agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My counter to your argument is that law enforcement have a significant, potentially lethal amount of legal force at their disposal with which to handle nearly any interaction with a member of the public, left solely to the discretion of the officer in question. This legal force behind their actions is more than capable of ending the life (figuratively or literally) of the individuals that officers interact with.

      Operators of nuclear power facilities, airline pilots and other persons who shoulder responsibilities with significant repercussions to their actions are monitored at all times while "on the clock". Why on earth should police face any less scrutiny?

      The only reason that constant monitoring is an issue with police and their apologists is that the corrupt cops are worried they won't be able to get away with being "thugs in uniform" any longer, and they've grown quite comfortable with their current position of untouchable power over the common citizen.

      I'm sure there are good cops left somewhere who will end up being vindicated by constant surveillance. All the rest of them can go to hell.

      It's long past time that corrupt officers are held responsible for their ongoing abuse and mockery of the legal system.

    3. Re:Opportunity For Agreement by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      When the word of the cop and the word of the citizen are treated with equal weight in court, your argument will be valid. until then, the citizens need all the protection they can get against a system that leans away from justice and in favor of the police.

    4. Re:Opportunity For Agreement by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Watched all the time? The proposal is to have police watched while on the job, not on their personal time. Lots of people get watched on the job.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  40. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by Immerman · · Score: 1

    It's potentially helpful to correct people gently. Far less so to try to call them out on a mistake. And how exactly is anyone supposed to expand their vocabulary if they limit themselves to only the words and phrases they've already completely mastered? That's not how language works. Hell, that's not how learning pretty much *anything* works.

    Language is learned through its use, misuse, and subsequent correction, starting with mimicking single-syllable sounds shortly after birth. As for not writing things you've only ever heard spoken - do you really keep a mental record of the source of all the words you've learned? I certainly don't. I seem to store words as an interlinked combination of sound and spelling. If I only hear it spoken the spelling may be off. I read a lot so more often I only see it spelled and the pronunciation is off. Until such time as I speak the word to (or hear it spoken by) someone who knows the proper pronunciation and they correct me, and I update my vocabulary with the anomalous pronunciation. And as best I can tell that's pretty normal. Why would should I artificially limit my vocabulary simply because I'm not 100% certain of its accuracy? And why would I want anyone else to do so? Talk about a lot of boring, simplistic conversations.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  41. What about a technological solution? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    Aren't the camera videos automatically uploaded when the vehicle returns at the end of shift or when they return to the station? When I was on juries with video evidence they explained how the chain of custody was maintained so we would believe it to be an accurate depiction of events. The video files are kept for a while of evidence, so it would seem to a simple matter to see when an antenna was broken by seeing when the video degraded. As a bonus, some videos are really funny and would be you tube hits or make a great reality series. I mean, you'd think a police force would have at least one person who understands how to run an investigation. Unless, of course, you really don't want to pick a fight with your officers and their union and just want this to go away.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  42. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > look illiterate.

    You should take your own advice. Appearance is everything.

  43. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wow, that looks absolutely awful! Can't wait to see how it ends!

  44. Asinine by Spazmania · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As I read these responses, I'm forced to wonder: would any of the posters tolerate having every spoken word recorded by The Boss throughout their shift? Even one of you?

    I understand the history here, the past bad deeds from members of this particular police force,. Nevertheless, these voice recorders sound to me like an outrageous invasion of the person of officers who individually have been accused of and found guilty of nothing at all.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:Asinine by zlives · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it is for the officers own protection against false litigation.

      see what i did there

    2. Re:Asinine by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't do my job "under the color of authority". If you have special legal privileges that the common man does not, additional oversight becomes appropriate, where it wouldn't be for the common man. Corruption matters more.
       

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As I read these responses, I'm forced to wonder: would any of the posters tolerate having every spoken word recorded by The Boss throughout their shift? Even one of you?

      1) Lots of people do already. For instance, call center employees.
      2) While not necessarily at the 'recording every word' level, many more jobs have constant surveillance. Cashiers, for example, almost always have a camera pointed at them. Perhaps it's video only, but not always.
      3) The police have the power to arrest you, injure you (if they claim it was necessary), even KILL you. What were the words of Uncle Ben? "With great power comes great responsibility". We need to hold the police greatly responsible for their actions.

    4. Re:Asinine by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there.

      The surveillance state is all about protecting people from falsehood and wrongdoing. What differentiates the surveillance state from actual protection? An off switch.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    5. Re:Asinine by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Its not every word that is recorded. The recorder activates when they engage the sirens. They are only recorded in the process of doing their jobs.

    6. Re:Asinine by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      More precisely: control of the off switch and who has it.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    7. Re:Asinine by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      would any of the posters tolerate having every spoken word recorded by The Boss throughout their shift? Even one of you?

      Any of them that have worked a help desk line may already have had all their conversations recorded. We are talking about recording a police office while on duty not off duty while in the shower or getting their freak on. Police officers have guns and mace and sometimes they use them on people a recording let's us know if it was necessary. If they don't like it get a new profession.

    8. Re:Asinine by Spazmania · · Score: 0

      I'm leery of reducing a job as important as police officer to call-center working conditions. If you know anything about call centers, you should be too.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    9. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many employers are allowed to monitor calls and email without employees having a say in the matter.

    10. Re:Asinine by Redmancometh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference here is A) My organization is not cloaked in the legitimacy of the state to use violence in the gain of civil order. B) My organization isn't known for beating black men to death, robbing people, raping women via searches, and harrassing people for no good reason.

      If we were our organization would be rather unpopular. Something like this type of monitoring would inevitably follow, and you would either deal with it or quit.
      Though on the ot her hand Chase bank basically got caught funding mass murder and no one is (to the public's knowledge) being surveilled.

    11. Re:Asinine by TangoMargarine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Considering that we don't seem to be offered the choice of whether or not we're wiretapped, I feel no sympathy towards law enforcement being recorded while on duty. At least with cops, there is actually a good reason to do so.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    12. Re:Asinine by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you give someone the power to kill you there comes with it some accountability. These people are entrusted with the ability to rob you of your constitutional rights. A large portion of them currently are more worried about protecting their buddies than protecting the public. So, in short. Fuck their non existent right to privacy while being paid by the public.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    13. Re:Asinine by pr0fessor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know boat loads about call centers my first tech related job was in a call center, help desk for dial-up and later dsl.

      I was actually trying to say if it's important enough that you need to record the college kid helping you setup dial-up or dsl then a police officer is far more important and should definitely be recorded

    14. Re:Asinine by mrex · · Score: 1

      As I read these responses, I'm forced to wonder: would any of the posters tolerate having every spoken word recorded by The Boss throughout their shift? Even one of you?

      That's the case for a great number of ordinary workers, and especially for those whose jobs entail great responsibilities, particularly the safeguarding of human life.

      Pilots' every spoken word are recorded by "the boss" during flight. Call center employees interactions with customers are often times recorded by "the boss", heavily scrutinized, and used to evaluate the employee's performance. US government employees with high clearances surrender their privacy almost entirely, and fully expect that their communications are monitored.

      The job police do is vital to the functioning of society, but it carries at least as much potential for abuse than any of these others I just mentioned. A police officer who does not perform his job appropriately puts the public at an extreme level of risk. It is appropriate that, given this extreme degree of power, we monitor, check, and balance their behavior through a commensurately extreme degree of supervision.

    15. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you use the companies phone system or email at work? Pretty much the same thing

    16. Re:Asinine by mrex · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm leery of reducing a job as important as police officer to call-center working conditions.

      That's a straw man argument. Nobody has recommended that we "reduce police officer(s) to call-center working conditions". Recording their on-duty interactions is as appropriate for police officers as it is for pilots. When something goes wrong and innocent people die, the public deserves to know why so that lessons can be learned. That's why we have cockpit voice recorders, and that's why we should have video and audio recording of all police interaction with the public.

      If they aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to hide, right...?

    17. Re:Asinine by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      I'm not a police officer and I have the ability to rob you of your constitutional rights any time I feel like it. I'm allowed to carry a gun too, and have the authority to invoke a citizens' arrest.

      If I violate your rights and you can prove it, I'll go to jail afterwards. If they wouldn't, that's a problem with the prosecutors and court system, not a problem with the police force.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    18. Re:Asinine by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      These people are equipped with special privileges that, if I simply assumed they were granted to me without express permission, would put me into jail. They have the right to carry a loaded weapon with them, threaten people with lethal force to do their bidding (and use said force if they don't comply), they have the right to deprave you of your liberty and a whole lot more of things that would at the very least get me arrested if I only dared to THINK of doing it.

      Yes, that needs oversight. These privileges are not granted to them as a person. They are granted to the job they are supposed to do. We're not talking about the privilege of using a computer to maybe access your Facebook page instead of actually doing what you're paid for. We are talking about privileges that can have serious impact on someone else's life, liberty and physical integrity.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Asinine by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. Truly. One of my friends has worked call centers his entire career. It's a horrible, dehumanizing job. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

      And I don't know about you, but I don't want the kind of people who would tolerate dehumanizing working conditions long term to run around with guns and squad cars. Like any worker, expect a policeman to treat you in every bit as dreadful a manner as his employer treats him.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    20. Re:Asinine by Spazmania · · Score: 0

      You're equating a constantly-overwriting black box that keeps around last two minutes of talk before a crash with continuous recording and long term storage of everything a police officer says, retrievable at his employers' pleasure.

      You accuse me of logical fallacy? Really?

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    21. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you've never worked in a call center...they are 100% Your actions, your screenclicks, your bathroom time, everything. If it's good enough for a lowly call center worker, it's good enough for the cops. Quit bitching and do your job.

    22. Re:Asinine by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      Do you believe it would be wise to give your typical call center employee a gun, a squad car and instructions to arrest lawbreakers?

      Call centers offer dehumanizing jobs that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. The last thing in the world I want is for someone who has grown used to that environment, someone who considers it an acceptable form human interaction, to be in charge of whether or not you or I go to jail.

      If you have any sense, you don't want that either.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    23. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Any trust-heavy job (cleared work, casino work, bank work, etc) is going to come with intrusive baggage, it's just how life is. If you give people access to power a certain fraction will always abuse it, and the only way to counter it is process and oversight.

      Working in those industries kinda sucks if you enjoy partying, but there are a lot of boring people out there that don't mind it. I'm ok with there being police employment selection pressure for really boring by-the-book Joe Friday types because the roided up jock types don't want to wear cameras.

    24. Re:Asinine by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm not a police officer and I have the ability to rob you of your constitutional rights any time I feel like it.

      There are certainly ways that could be done. However unless you're a member of the blue light triad you don't have the right to incarcerate him for "resisting arrest" or "failing to obey a lawful order" on a whim.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    25. Re:Asinine by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Yes. I would happily have my employer monitor every word I say during every shift I perform where I get to pack heat and take people captive against their will.

    26. Re:Asinine by mrex · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are mistaken about how cockpit voice recorders work. They record much more than "the last two minutes of talk before a crash". They typically record two hours on a continuous loop, and in the wake of the MH370 event that will probably be increased to eight hours or more.

    27. Re:Asinine by Belial6 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You know, you don't have to be sexist and racist to make your point. The police are known for beating PEOPLE to death. Some of them black, some of other races, including white, asian and hispanic. Police have also been know to rape PEOPLE. Yes, men as well as women.

    28. Re:Asinine by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      What planet do you live on that police don't consider dehuminizing people to be an acceptable form of human interaction?

    29. Re:Asinine by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      As it turns out, neither does any police officer. They may do it from time to time, just as burglars may break in to your house from time to time, but they don't have the right.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    30. Re:Asinine by LocalH · · Score: 1

      When you gain the power that comes with being a police officer, then everything you do when on duty and filling that official capacity should be open to public scrutiny. Since abuses of that power have very direct and damaging effects on the victims of said abuses, I feel that all officers must sacrifice some of their freedom, while on the job, in order to help protect civilian rights. Those who are good officers that go by the book in every situation (outside of emergency situations that can and do occur, that require nearly instantaneous reaction time) and don't abuse their power have nothing to worry about - if something bad happens that is questionable, having a record of it would also protect the officer.

      Yes, I realize that's dangerously close to "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide". However, there is a difference between applying that to civilian individuals (including off-duty police officers) who have a very real right to privacy, and applying it to people who we have allowed to have legal power above and beyond what we allow civilians to do (for example, while civilians in many areas have the right to make a "citizen's arrest", they most likely do not have the right to use physical force to detain that individual, whereas the police do have that right). With power comes the responsibility to ensure that those powers are used properly, and having such interactions recorded as a matter of law protects the civilian and the officer.

      I personally think this would be a good idea with civilians too, but the difference is, with officers (and other public officials with power above an ordinary civilian), those recording devices should be mandated by law and such footage available for review by any member of the public, but with civilians, the control over such devices (and indeed, the entire decision to wear them at all) should rest with the individual device owner. I really wish people would get over their Google Glass hangups and realize that, while in public, there is no right not to be recorded. Having a record of the day's interactions (that would automatically fade into the ether after, say, 24 hours, unless a segment is explicitly reviewed by the user and saved) would help prevent or at least reduce the "he said, she said" arguments that sometimes occur when a claim is made, because there is an impartial record of what happened (and in fact, in a society that doesn't have such a hangup about "public privacy", all parties would be recording, making for a way to corroborate what happened and have a fighting chance at detecting editing or other tampering).

      --
      FC Closer
    31. Re:Asinine by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, any member of the public has a right to record a police officer's activity while he's on the job. The courts have repeatedly affirmed it to the point where police interference can cost them their qualified immunity.

      His employer has the right too. I think it's a really bad idea because you're more than dangerously close to "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    32. Re:Asinine by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      The thing that make call centers so terrible is mostly people...

      If you are working in an inbound call center in tech support no one calls to say "you are awesome and everything works great." they call when they have a problem they can't fix on their own and they are frustrated and angry or you get people trying to game the system. This makes it a tough place to work even with the best management.

      The police have to deal with those same people in person when they are robbed or whatever and even worse they have to deal with the people that committed those crimes. The police were I live if asked will tell you they love having their recording devices but then again they also have an on/off button they can use at their discretion and get to review it later when filling out reports.

    33. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I read these responses, I'm forced to wonder: would any of the posters tolerate having every spoken word recorded by The Boss throughout their shift? Even one of you?

      I understand the history here, the past bad deeds from members of this particular police force,. Nevertheless, these voice recorders sound to me like an outrageous invasion of the person of officers who individually have been accused of and found guilty of nothing at all.

      I would probably find it a bit annoying, but then again my job doesn't come with a gun and a badge.

    34. Re:Asinine by breeze95 · · Score: 2

      1) Lots of people do already. For instance, call center employees.

      There are reasons call center ranks below garbage collection on the list of desirable jobs. This is one of them.

      I understand your point though: you wouldn't tolerate that sort of treatment but the other guy should have to. He's different!

      The other guy doesn't have to tolerate that sort of treatment either. They are free to quit.

    35. Re:Asinine by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, proof. A man just got out of prison after serving 15 months for assaulting an officer. Problem was he didn't. Cops hid the dash cam video of the officer attacking him. After the video surfaced the guy was released. It's sad but cops lie and protect each other. Their actions have to be recorded.

    36. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9-13 14-18 Record away.
      I already treat my work pc and email as if anyone can read anything on it at anytime.
      I haven't had a single conversation with my boss that I wouldn't mind having recorded, other than ones pertaining to personal mental and health related problems.
      I'd just have to extend this to my other co-workers. As long as lunch time is untouched it wouldn't matter anyway.

    37. Re:Asinine by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      But look how hard they fight when you want to do something about the non-rights they routinely exercise with impunity.

      It might be different if it wasn't for the last 100 years of history. For example if DAs _ever_ prosecuted cops for perjury.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    38. Re:Asinine by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      A dishonest average worker isn't going to get innocent people thrown in jail or beaten. A dishonest police officer will. Trying to compare the two is ludicrous.

    39. Re:Asinine by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      When one fucking pig loses his house and pension for arresting/beating someone for recording him you will have a point. For now your just making things up.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    40. Re:Asinine by breeze95 · · Score: 2

      You're equating a constantly-overwriting black box that keeps around last two minutes of talk before a crash with continuous recording and long term storage of everything a police officer says, retrievable at his employers' pleasure.

      You accuse me of logical fallacy? Really?

      The Black box is not the only recording instrument on a commercial plane. There is a cockpit recording device that records all conversations in the cockpit for the entire flight.

    41. Re:Asinine by breeze95 · · Score: 1

      As I read these responses, I'm forced to wonder: would any of the posters tolerate having every spoken word recorded by The Boss throughout their shift? Even one of you?

      That's the case for a great number of ordinary workers, and especially for those whose jobs entail great responsibilities, particularly the safeguarding of human life.

      Pilots' every spoken word are recorded by "the boss" during flight. Call center employees interactions with customers are often times recorded by "the boss", heavily scrutinized, and used to evaluate the employee's performance. US government employees with high clearances surrender their privacy almost entirely, and fully expect that their communications are monitored.

      The job police do is vital to the functioning of society, but it carries at least as much potential for abuse than any of these others I just mentioned. A police officer who does not perform his job appropriately puts the public at an extreme level of risk. It is appropriate that, given this extreme degree of power, we monitor, check, and balance their behavior through a commensurately extreme degree of supervision.

      In addition, CIA employees and many members of various federal agencies have to take a yearly polygraph test. So, it's very common for employees in sensitive positions to be highly scrutinized.

    42. Re:Asinine by breeze95 · · Score: 1

      Do you believe it would be wise to give your typical call center employee a gun, a squad car and instructions to arrest lawbreakers?

      Call centers offer dehumanizing jobs that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. The last thing in the world I want is for someone who has grown used to that environment, someone who considers it an acceptable form human interaction, to be in charge of whether or not you or I go to jail.

      If you have any sense, you don't want that either.

      The problems with working in call centers have nothing to do with recording conversations between call center workers and customers. All of the problems with working in call centers have to do with lousy pay, poor benefits and a general lack of job security. In all the years, I'm yet to hear call center employees complain that their conversations with customers are monitored. It's simply not an issue.

    43. Re:Asinine by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      So it's sexist/racist to point out the motivation for a crime if that motivation was race/sex based now? We should probably clarify I'm not talking about "the police" in general I'm talking about the LAPD.

      The fact of the matter is what I talked about are the things that get the spot light. Women have been molested in "searches", and it has been reported, a LOT. When it becomes a recurring issue then it's a problem totally seperate from just straight up raping people.

      I can't think of any public cases of guys getting raped recently. I CAN however think of 5-6 cases of women being molsted in a "search." The idea that not only is it common, but it's underreported, so that skews the numbers even further. So that specifically is a common issue, whereas raping men is mostly just an isolated issue (I hope?) as far as I know from what I read/hear.

      It's the same with them beating minorities to death, or near-death. A new incident is reported like every other week. It could be press discrimination (the other stories aren't as "sexy"), but unfortantely that's where I get a lot of my news.

      I know for sure police beat minorities up on a regular basis, because I read it. I know for sure police finger-fuck women against their will using a "search" as justification.

      I don't hear about the others being beaten, so I wouldn't offer it up as am issue.

    44. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you deliberately gloss-over a very large detail?
      That police officers are given certain rights and privileges that NO ONE ELSE in society enjoys. Rights and privileges that some officers abuse, and which can destroy other people's lives.

    45. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously? And even THAT is too much for them?

    46. Re:Asinine by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's sad it has come to this, but, it's not the fault of the public it has.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

      Wouldn't any cop who is for accountability and against corruption, any cop who has a brain and a conscience and wants to feel good and proud not only of the job they are doing personally, but also of their colleagues, or at least not fucking ashamed, welcome this as a very small price to pay?

      And why would I care what the others, those who engage in corruption and abuse of authority, think? They have a service weapon, they can always opt out by blowing out what has to be their equivalent of brain matter.

      "Outrageous invasion of privacy", when people regularly get shot by cops showing up out of nowhere, and get invaded with bullets and boots? Cry me a fucking river. Clean up your department, clean up your profession, and then let's talk again about treating cops like they're more than rabid, wiley dogs by default. Likewise, let's cure AIDS first, and then re-consider the viability of people having random sex with without condoms.

    47. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can only recall the NYPD incident being publicized (in relation to male rapey behavior)

      http://www.revcom.us/a/v19/920...

    48. Re:Asinine by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      Well I WOULD like to see a few more people prosecuted for perjury. Not just cops.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    49. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I read these responses, I'm forced to wonder: would any of the posters tolerate having every spoken word recorded by The Boss throughout their shift? Even one of you?

      Airline pilots. ATCs. 911 call centers. Hell, most call center workers have their interactions with customers recorded. Judges in court. Broadcasters. Surgeons in operating theaters.

      There are lots of jobs where it is routine to be recorded while you work for safety or performance review.

    50. Re:Asinine by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You are being racist in exactly the same way that someone would be racist if you said "White people shouldn't have to take their shoes off at the airport." The fact that more women get raped by the LAPD than men doesn't mean that you should exclude them when you are calling out who shouldn't get raped. You went out of your way to declare one specific group, and then one specific gender should be protected from the police. You didn't do it for brevity. You actually wrote more to make your racist point. You may not realize it because you are a racist, but black men are men.

    51. Re:Asinine by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      Because they're not. An ordinary citizen can legally do almost anything a police officer can do, even arrest somebody. The biggest difference is that a police officer enjoys qualified immunity to lawsuit if he gets it wrong.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    52. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a police officer and I have the ability to rob you of your constitutional rights any time I feel like it. I'm allowed to carry a gun too, and have the authority to invoke a citizens' arrest.

      Oh, you're welcome to try. I'll put my combat experience in Iraq, Bosnia, and Afghanistan up against your keyboard cowboy skills any day of the week. My HK P2000sk is chock full of Hornady Critical Defense in 9mm +P just waiting to burst your bubble. Yes, you're not the only one who carries, cupcake. Then, I'll pull your driver's license and see what your spouse is up to out of sheer malice.

      I've read a couple of your other post.. you're so fucking stupid that it has to be physically painful to you. The police are in an elevated position of authority and therefore should invite, if not require additional scrutiny.. to include bi-annual polygraphs, audio/video surveillance, and credit checks to make sure they're not making 'unexplained' money. You're a fucking moron, full stop. I've also worked with the Innocence Project in two states, and the average level of police corruption in ALL jurisdictions is breathtaking.

      And just remember, if you're a cop who witnesses another cop breaking the law and you don't act on it, YOU are just as guilty.

    53. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yet i keep getting told by authority (inculding police) if i have done nothing wrong i have nothing to hide. Double standards?

    54. Re:Asinine by mmell · · Score: 1
      ...and the verdict is known before the trial begins?

      After all, it wouldn't do to bring the innocent to trial.

    55. Re:Asinine by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is crazy. It's not being recorded when you're on a call that makes call centers horrible, it's how you're treated the rest of the time. It's the parts where when you're not on a call you've got supervisors getting upset. It's when you acknowledge the person you're talking to is a human being with better things to do and get yelled at for not selling hard enough that makes it horrible. These things do not translate into recording the police.

    56. Re:Asinine by geekmux · · Score: 1

      As I read these responses, I'm forced to wonder: would any of the posters tolerate having every spoken word recorded by The Boss throughout their shift? Even one of you?

      I understand the history here, the past bad deeds from members of this particular police force,. Nevertheless, these voice recorders sound to me like an outrageous invasion of the person of officers who individually have been accused of and found guilty of nothing at all.

      Then for once, the police officer will know exactly what it feels like to be profiled in the most abusive way possible.

      And based on their actions, I'd say they like it about as much as the average joe does, but I really don't want to hear shit about it. They need to change the laws by voting and changing policy, not destroying agency-issued hardware at taxpayer expense, which if any of us civilians were to touch that hardware, it would likely be a felony tampering offense.

    57. Re:Asinine by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Its not every word that is recorded. The recorder activates when they engage the sirens. They are only recorded in the process of doing their jobs.

      Wow. And they're complaining about that shit.

      Oh, and I'm certain that no officer would ever abuse such a system that is only engaged 2% of the time...

    58. Re:Asinine by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I'm not a police officer and I have the ability to rob you of your constitutional rights any time I feel like it. I'm allowed to carry a gun too, and have the authority to invoke a citizens' arrest.

      If I violate your rights and you can prove it, I'll go to jail afterwards. If they wouldn't, that's a problem with the prosecutors and court system, not a problem with the police force.

      Not a problem with the police force?

      So a banker who steals every week but is never prosecuted, that somehow is only a legal problem, not an individual one.

      What utter bullshit.

      Morals and ethics start with the individual, and the person who hired them. If a cop violates rights, then fire them. They clearly don't get how important their job is to execute properly. Waiting around for the legal system to resolve what should be a moral or ethical problem with an individual is the wrong way to go about this. Deterrents work.

    59. Re:Asinine by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      I took that to mean that in Redmancometh's experience, police brutality seems to be applied particularly vigorously to minority groups. Seems to fit my own observations, bad cops are basically just bullies. As always your mileage may vary.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    60. Re:Asinine by Redmancometh · · Score: 2

      So if there were a bunch of blatantly race-related murders that cropped up you're answer is to "protect everyone from murder" instead of addressing that specific situation, because "it would be racist to address the killings of whites/blacks/asians."

      People like you look for racism, sexism, or whateverism, in absolutely everything. We need to be vigilant against ACTUAL racism..of course. However, if you think what I said is racist, you need to get your race-ar recalibrated.

      If an issue is recurring, AND the MOTIVATION FOR THE CRIME ITSELF is race/sex ignoring that aspect is just willful ignorance, and completely ridiculous. Since when is pointing out institutionalized racism itself racism? Maybe this is meta-meta-racism on a level I just can't grasp...I really don't know.

      How is it sexist to say women are being finger-raped by cops? The cops aren't sexually attracted to men, so they don't generally finger them. Whereas with women they can just say it was a search, and no female officers were available. Hell in most cases the women don't even speak up, because they don't know any better. There was the one guy raped at the hospital under LE direction, but I don't even think that was the LAPD.

      On a side note:
      This completely-overboard politically correct culture needs to die. If you reach far enough you can find racism/sexism/etc in literally anything! Just ask Jesse Jackson!

        When did the intent of what someone said stop mattering? If someone says something that is obviously meant one way and you take it a completely different way to make it into something racist you're part of the problem.

      Sorry if this sounds ranty, but I'm tired and grouchy, and the aforementioned "culture" being fostered here in the US is something I feel very strongly about.

    61. Re:Asinine by rhook · · Score: 1

      Public officials have no right to privacy while doing their jobs. They are accountable to the public.

    62. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Witness the sheer intelligence (not) of Sardaukar86 (foaming @ the mouth) http://news.slashdot.org/comme... + http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    63. Re:Asinine by geirlk · · Score: 1

      Yes, you mean like how they've reduced pilots jobs to call-center working conditions because of the cockpit voice recorder?

    64. Re:Asinine by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      If a banker steals money from the bank, that's a problem with one banker. The a dozen bankers steal money from the bank every week and upon discovery the bank fails to fire them, that's a problem with the bank.

      More oversight of the bankers won't fix the problem with the bank.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    65. Re:Asinine by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      If the KKK went on a rampage as started kill 10 black people a day and 1 chinese, I would most certainly say that they should be stopped from killing people. How could you in good conscious say that they should just stop kill the black people?

      It is sexist because getting raped can happen as a means of violence is just as bad as rape performed for sexual stimulation. I get that men getting raped is considered comedy by large portions of our society, but that doesn't mean that your implicit statement that it is ok for men to be raped is somehow not sexist.

      YOU are the one who is being overly politically correct. PC culture does exactly what you do. Try to fix only problems that do not effect old, straight and white mails. You invoke Jesse Jackson as an example of someone who is rediculous, yet your speaking points are directly from his playbook. He would be the one arguing that only black people should be protected from abusive police. He would be trying to limit the conversation to "institutionalized racism".

      You are acting as a wannabe Jesse Jackson, and yes, Jesse Jackson is a racist.

    66. Re:Asinine by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      He did mean that, he also was racest. The two are not mutually exclusive. The discussion was about police abusing their power. The fact is, the police abuse thier power against all sorts of people. Saying that we should protect everyone from this abuse, and only protect black people (even if they have gotten the worst of the police abuse) is racist. It is stupid (as racism frequently is). Redmancometh's racism actually agrues against anyone who isn't black from considering police abuse to be a threat to themselves. Thus, he reduces the number of allies every single black person would have outside their own racial group. He would try to have me believe that if I only care about my safety and the safety of my family, beatings by the LA police department are of no concern to me.

      That is one of the overwhelming stupidities of racism. It leads people to act against their own best interest because of some twisted sense of morals.

    67. Re:Asinine by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Huh? His words were:

      My organization isn't known for beating black men to death, robbing people, raping women via searches, and harrassing people for no good reason.

      He certainly seems to be including everyone in that statement - emphasis mine.

      Are you sure you're not just looking for something to be upset about? I've found a lot of people who like to call others out for 'racism' seem to fit into this group.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    68. Re:Asinine by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Not "available for review by any member of the public," not everything. In some cases, this will violate other people's privacy.

      Police respond to crimes, and part of their job is to talk to the victim. Think a woman who's just been raped is going to want her police interview distributed on the net? They may want to talk to an informant, and said informant would not want that footage to become public.

      Available for examination if a court so orders should be good enough.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    69. Re:Asinine by metaforest · · Score: 1

      As a gratefully EX (moved on to better tasks) Dir of Ops of a call center I can assure you every inbound and outbound call is recorded and stored in the call flow. This is in part for CYA, and in part for detecting when a client or customer is engaging in fraud. In the beginning of my term, it also helped catch catch Oracle out when they tried to lie about their service levels on a product that had been licensed from them. No one ever answers a call before the inbound 'Betty' announces to all parties, that the call is being recorded for quality and training purposes. Outbound calls also had a greeting announcement from 'Betty' indicating that calls were recorded.
      In the Oracle case it was their own call handling system that was used to catch them.

    70. Re:Asinine by metaforest · · Score: 1

      A burglar typically does not have backup on hand... The same holds true for a citizen's arrest. Which is why they are almost unheard of.

      ('shots fired! Shots fired! Officer down!' 911 Rascal Avenue, cross 33rd Street!' ) No other requirement is needed to rain fatal retribution on a 'resisting' suspect, or to give chase to same.

      TL: DR: Burglars cannot do this, and citizens attempting arrest have no access to the resources to do this.

      Yes sworn officers need to be surveilled AT ALL TIMES while performing their jobs for OUR safety and THEIR safety.

    71. Re:Asinine by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I'm forced to wonder: would any of the posters tolerate having every spoken word recorded by The Boss throughout their shift? Even one of you?

      The reason call centers came up was to show that people are recorded all the time and tolerate it.

      Sales associates have a very different view of the call center environment because they are expected to sell. I've never worked in a call center position where I sold anything and I only did tech support, which is a different environment

      Sure I have more than few horror stories about call centers but few of them are about management.

    72. Re:Asinine by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Then you have poor reading comprehension skills. Read it again. Then read it a third time.

    73. Re:Asinine by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Then you have poor reading comprehension skills. Read it again. Then read it a third time.

      Yeah, that goes both ways pal.

      You're reading into it such that you can be upset and are clutching at very feeble straws to maintain this annoyance. I've been unfortunate enough to have come across plenty of you do-gooder types before. What you all fail to realise is that your amazing ability to see racism, sexism and discrimination in every comment actually serves to make the situation worse for everyone.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    74. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Witness the sheer intelligence (not) of Sardaukar86 (foaming @ the mouth) http://news.slashdot.org/comme... + http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    75. Re:Asinine by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I regret the acidity of my last post to you. I accused you of reading too much into the GP's post then went ahead and read a whole bunch of stuff into your reply. Sorry.

      An awful lot of rational debate is severely constrained in my country (NZ) because there are a lot of people here ready to hit the 'racist!' button to derail the conversation. It pisses me off no end but it doesn't give me the right to assume these are also your characteristics nor attack you for same. My apologies.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    76. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Witness the sheer intelligence (not) of Sardaukar86 (foaming @ the mouth) http://news.slashdot.org/comme... + http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    77. Re:Asinine by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Accepted. And please understand. That was largely my point. I was responding to someone who pulled out the 'racist' card. It gets old and divides people, reducing all of our power to address the root problems as a larger group.

  45. Re:Transfer by hoboroadie · · Score: 2

    This is the preferred solution. After all that training, once an officer proves his eagerness to randomly break a few legs, it just won't do to let them go. That good LAPD conditioning has been disseminated throughout the country as these "rogue" cops take their skills and fucked-up attitudes out to rural America, the better to squelch any nascent bonds developing with the innocent citizens they intend to "protect and serve".

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  46. It's a job, not private life by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't surveillance of a private individual; this is monitoring the performance of someone doing their job; a job they are paid to do, a job they can opt out of, a job they have incurred obligations with regard to. It's perfectly legitimate.

    Further, these people are given extraordinary power over citizens; the saw "with great power comes great responsibility" pretty much covers why monitoring them makes good sense from the citizen's POV. Even if we didn't know these particular officers have demonstrated that their cadre is well supplied with lawbreakers, and that more generally, they all are dishonest enough to observe the "thin blue line", it would still make sense to monitor them, just for their own assurance that specious claims against them could trivially be refuted. The fact that these idiots are intentionally killing that benefit by incapacitating the monitoring capability is a strong indicator as to why they're doing it: Almost certainly, something else is going on they are afraid will be seen -- add their known history of malfeasance, and we've got good reason to insist those cameras and audio recorders run though the entire shift, on every individual.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:It's a job, not private life by gnick · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's how I see it. If I'm at home, don't monitor me. If I'm accessing a vault full of cash, OK maybe. If I'm flying an armed fighter jet, I won't object too hard if they want to track me every time I go off course and engage my weapons.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:It's a job, not private life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like this?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP-_cVgKSG0

  47. Whoa by fyngyrz · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Are you trying to say that a police officer isn't different from non-police citizens?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Whoa by Spazmania · · Score: 0

      We're all human beings. None of us are 100% faultless 100% of the time and with the exception of folks with an exhibitionist fetish none of us particularly enjoy being surveilled,

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    2. Re:Whoa by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not all human beings are able to arrest me.

      Not all human beings are able to have their word taken over mine in court by default.

      Not all human beings are able to injure me and get away with it.

      Not all human beings are able to invade my home and get away with it.

      Not all human beings are able to kill me and get away with it.

      Not all human beings are able to restrain me and get away with it.

      Not all human beings are able to force me to stop my car and get away with it.

      Not all human beings are allowed to go fogging down the road, dangerously far over the speed limit just because some pretty lights are on and/or they're making a loud noise. ...and so on.

      So look here: I'll grant you that cops aren't 100% faultless nor is it reasonable to expect them to be, but, I think it's important to point out that when a cop makes an actual mistake, we need to look really hard at it even if we conclude all the response that's required is pointing it out, and more data is better in that case.

      Furthermore, when "not 100% faultless" really means "cop is a scumbag criminal", or "cop is aiding and abetting a fellow cop who is a scumbag criminal by conspiring to hide their misdeeds and is therefore also a scumbag criminal" then yes, we do need to see who and how they are hurting people as they violate the public trust so we at least have some chance to clean house. This is oversight of power in public service, and it is, I believe, *entirely* reasonable when any serious degree of force and/or authority is delegated.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Whoa by Spazmania · · Score: 0

      Not all human beings are able to arrest me.

      Ever heard of citizen's arrest?

      Not all human beings are able to have their word taken over mine in court by default.

      Only for infractions where the maximum penalty is a small fine. In every other matter, a police officer's testimony carries the same legal weight as anybody else's.

      Not all human beings are able to injure me and get away with it.

      A cop is no more able to injure you and get away with it than anyone else. Indeed, a teenager is much more likely to escape penalty than a cop.

      Not all human beings are able to invade my home and get away with it.

      Actually, bounty hunters have far more rights in this respect than cops do. And they're not government employees.

      Not all human beings are able to kill me and get away with it.

      George Zimmerman.

      Not all human beings are able to restrain me and get away with it.

      Citizen's arrest.

      Furthermore, when "not 100% faultless" really means "cop is a scumbag criminal", [...] then yes, we do need to see who and how they are hurting people

      Then limit the recorders to officers who've received X complaints in the prior 12 months. You know, people for whom there is a reasonable suspicion that they're engaged in bad behavior.

      How will you ever get rid of the bad actors if you make it horrible job for anybody who might replace them?

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    4. Re:Whoa by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      A cop is no more able to injure you and get away with it than anyone els

      Now you're just completely hallucinating.

      Here's the face of that: http://www.cato.org/raidmap.

      Cops get away with injuring people all the time, both on the street and in custody, not to mention via proxies in prison.

      How will you ever get rid of the bad actors if you make it horrible job for anybody who might replace them?

      I didn't make it a horrible job. They did.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    5. Re:Whoa by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Only for infractions where the maximum penalty is a small fine. In every other matter, a police officer's testimony carries the same legal weight as anybody else's.

      Hearsay exemption.

  48. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    Is being constantly surveilled really the problem, or...

    Is being surveilled by people who will nail you to the wall with any minor infraction they can drum up, all of which any one person cannot possibly be aware of at once, the problem?

    And that it has been shown that we somehow have no practical accountability for such positions of authority.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  49. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 1

    not of used

    not've used

    It's a contraction of "not have used". Again try to avoid using words/phrases that you've only heard and never read when writing. It occasionally makes you look illiterate.

    For the record I don't think this should be modes as "Troll". His observation is correct. If anything I usually try hard to *thank* people who correct me. So, "thanks".... I appreciate that you took the time to correct my grammar.

  50. Just set a few alarms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the signal is lost, alarm.
    If the incoming sound is muted, alarm.
    If the incoming sound is blasted with white-noise, alarm.

    If alarms go off, the officers with the car and the car will be inspected immediately - ie - recalled to the station for inspection.

    Failure to comply, immediate suspension without pay, unless it can be proved that the tampering was done by an outside force - ie - vandal stealing the antenna for the audio receiver, which should be internal to the car anyway - ie - tied to the window antennas normally used for AM/FM reception. or built into a fin on top of the car like modern antennas.

  51. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Anyone who has privileges that allow him to have a potentially severe impact on the lives, freedom and physical integrity of everyone else needs to be checked to ensure he does only execute this privilege for the benefit of those he swore to protect and not to his personal gain or to feed his ego.

    I am no fan of surveillance. But if you are handling power that threatens the life or liberty of thousands of others, at the very least I want to be sure that you cannot abuse that power. Otherwise, please hand over the keys and codes to some nukes. You can trust me, I won't abuse that power.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  52. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Easy. Everyone caught taking bribes is sent to the same jail that houses the people he caught.

    Trust me, the incentive to take bribes plummets instantly when you're facing certain death.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  53. If you want something to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... test it. The police should not be allowed on duty with malfunctioning gear.

  54. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by reikae · · Score: 1

    If I only hear it spoken the spelling may be off. I read a lot so more often I only see it spelled and the pronunciation is off.

    That's a bug in the English language :-)

  55. "That seems extreme" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? If a passerby was caught reaching into a police car and breaking the same piece of equipment I can guarantee that they would be facing some form of jail time (even if it was only a day or so with community service/fines attached). Why should officers be treated any differently? If anything those in positions of authority should be held to higher standards not lower ones.

  56. Additionally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Nothing about my day job provides for use of force, arrest, and charging people with criminal acts which could lead to their incarceration."

    Nothing about most of our day jobs allows us to use deadly force to incapacitate someone either.

  57. Spiderman, spiderman, does whatever... by Dogtanian · · Score: 0

    What were the words of Uncle Ben? "With great power comes great responsibility".

    Am I the only person who read "Uncle Ben" and thought of the fictitious rice guy?!

    Though it pretty obviously wasn't him, it sounded like something one of those oft-quoted American leaders might say, so I assumed "Uncle Ben" might refer to "Benjamin Franklin". Then I looked it up.

    Sorry, did you ask for me to return my geek card? Er.... listen, to be honest I already had to hand that in a while back. I only got in here because I bribed the guy on the door with an "Apple Genius" t-shirt. What? Yeah, I know, I don't think he's a real geek either, he only wanted that because it got a product placement on The Big Bang Theory. He bought Windows 8 for the same reason.

    Anyway, I don't know that much about Spiderman, saw the first two movies a few years back but don't remember much about them. Can I stay if I mention I liked Spiderman and his Amazing Friends when I was a kid? No? Look, I know the words to that Spiderman song, here, let me sing it for you...

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  58. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by chihowa · · Score: 1

    So, like we already have with prison rape, you suggest further decoupling sentences from justice?

    We're trying to make the world a less corrupt and barbaric place. Hyperbole and hysteria don't further that cause.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  59. Um, I already get that by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    my company monitors everything I do and say when I'm at work. Most do. If you think yours doesn't you're either kidding yourself or working for yourself.

    And why should you have an expectation of privacy regarding anything you do while you're on the job that pertains to the job?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  60. Meh, money is freedom by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm always hearing how my personal privacy is the most important freedom I've got, meanwhile my wages have been declining for 30 years. You never hear the Koch brothers complaining about their personal privacy. How much do you know about them? What do you suppose would happen to you if you tried to find out?

    Money is freedom. Economic security is freedom. You're not free so long as somebody can deprive you of food/shelter/health care/etc.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  61. That's crazy talk by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    are you suggesting that an issue might not be simple, and that simple common sense, gut feelings and ideology might not produce the best results?

    I kid, I kid, but good post. I guess what I wish people would take away is that the world is a complex place and we really have to think about what we're doing, why we're doing it. There's no magic set of principles that will get us to the right answer :(.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  62. No News: LAPD IS EVIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ipso facto.

    LAPD have been this way for decades; better be careful if you are a Latino or Mexican.

  63. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    We are? Sorry, the US prison practice had me fooled.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  64. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by chihowa · · Score: 1

    Oh, I wasn't including them in my "we". I was referring to conscientious non-psychopathic humans!

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  65. Sardaukar86 gets "upset" (lol) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Witness the sheer intelligence (not) of Sardaukar86 (foaming @ the mouth) http://news.slashdot.org/comme... + http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

  66. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the record I don't think this should be modes as "Troll". His observation is correct. If anything I usually try hard to *thank* people who correct me. So, "thanks".... I appreciate that you took the time to correct my grammar.

    Only one of his observations is correct. The other might be a generalization or entirely false. Personally, I tend to type phonetically and can't believe the mistakes I make.

    The world has writers and editors as* distinct professions for a damn good reason. Which is more literate? I don't know, but I won't be asking GPP.

    * FWIW, I typed "and" in place of "as" which makes no sense. Keep in mind that when I say "phonetically", I don't hear to well either. English is my first, second, and third language).

  67. POLICE by metaforest · · Score: 1

    That word means 'Peace Officer'

    The goal is keeping the peace... it is not LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (LEO)

    This is where the role of POLICE and many Sheriff departments have gone off the reservation.

    Fire departments have only limited roles in fire prevention.... EMTs do not preemptively save lives by throwing people in jail....

    We have allowed the tail to wag the dog as far as policing is concerned.

    No blood, no fowl. If someone has not called the cops they should not have a role.

    By all means at the time someone calls for police let there be hell, fire and brimstone called forth to protect the public and seek the criminals.

    Where there is no victim there is no crime..... The state is a victim only when it loses assets or legal claim to assets. Fuck the crimes where the State suffers no loss....

  68. Schocked, SCHOCKED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever could have predicted that the worst of the worst would intentionally subvert a system designed to identify them as brutes.

    Schocked!