It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Pennsylvania Law Bans Naming Police Officers Involved in Shootings For 30 Days

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: MagicCow




There should be citizen panels made of professional respected individuals just like in the military.


I think those points would be a good start, that sounds like a jury trial. Is that the object of that first point?

the others sound doable.




posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MagicCow
a reply to: SlapMonkey

There should be citizen panels made of professional respected
individuals just like in the military.


originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: MagicCow

I think those points would be a good start, that sounds like a jury trial.


I was a 27D (paralegal) in the JAGCorp in the Army, and there was no citizen panels of anything to investigate the military, it was done by MPs, CID, and the Court-Martial panel (jury) made up of military members. What citizen panels are you talking about? (unless something has changed since 2006)


All body cams should be working and them being "magically" malfunctioning
during an officer involved shooting should result in that officers immediate termination
and termination of his ability to be an officer ANYWHERE.


I disagree to the point that officers are not video technicians, and they shouldn't be fired for an issue with technology for which they're not trained or qualified to fix. However, IF it is proven that the "malfunction" was of the officer's intentional doing, I agree that they are unfit to be law enforcement.

Hell, maybe make turning them on and off be an off-site, remote thing handled by dispatch once a call is picked up by certain officers--they show up to an incident, dispatch turns on the camera with the officers having zero ability to do it themselves.

And to add to your comment about bodycams, I think that they should be live-fed to a third-party at all times (maybe an arm of the state-run investigatory office that I mentioned earlier), and any time that a body-cam quits working, the officers and the PD should be notified immediately. A live-stream to a website accessible to the general public would be nice, too, but since I'm in support of this 30-day law, that would negate the point of the law, I suppose.

Regardless, accountability and transparency obviously both have a lot of room for improvement in many cases.

I don't think that these topics are thread drift...it's all relevant to laws and policies that affect officer-civilian interaction.

edit on 1-11-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

There are civilian oversight panels for projects.
There may not be for criminal or law investigations.
That was more my meaning but in this instance civilian panels for
the use of investigating officers.

No - they are not trained to handle technical electronic issues.
That I can not bar them for - but just as they check their weapons before
going on duty they should check their cameras the same to ensure
they work.

Your thoughts on off-site dispatch controlled on/off capability is fracking genius.

On another note - Thank you for your service.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Read reply above to Mr.Slap.
Yes a civilian oversight panel that works with the community to ensure
that they're not Blue Walling of silence the truth.
These panels should also have term limits so that no one person becomes too comfortable
in the position allowing the chance for corruption under "you scratch my back I scratch yours" scenarios.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: MagicCow

Term limits should be a given in any type of job where corruption can become an issue.

Hell, maybe LEOs should have "term limits," so to speak--maybe a decade is their tour of duty in police department, and then it's time to PCS (permanent change of station) to another PD, at least, say, 250 miles away, with guaranteed retention of rank, of course. If it can work in the military, it could work in law enforcement--the only problem I see with that is that local law enforcement would need a national agency that oversaw all of this, and that's no solution at all, making the federal government larger.

I'm just thinking out loud at this point, but it's obvious to most people that complacency and corruption both stem from being in one place too long, and neither qualities are good for LEOs to possess.

My service--you're welcome.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
why should they be worried about anonymity if they have nothing to hide?
the heroes are here to uphold the law and serve and protect right?



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

Nice, pot is stirred.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
why should they be worried about anonymity if they have nothing to hide?
the heroes are here to uphold the law and serve and protect right?


LEOs should be protected from the oft-ignorant court of public opinion and slander/libel just like anyone else, regardless if you consider them human beings first and officers second.

Also, the if-they-have-nothing-to-hide argument is weak.

Debunking The Dangerous "If You Have Nothing To Hide, You Have Nothing To Fear"



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Also, the if-they-have-nothing-to-hide argument is weak.

No weaker than when it was used to justify the use of public surveillance cameras.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
Debunking The Dangerous "If You Have Nothing To Hide, You Have Nothing To Fear"




I have never bought the nothing to hide theory. I found a number of different reasons why I have never bought into the "group think".

1) The rules may change, think if a new law was to uniformly install surveillance cams in private homes to prevent force domestic violence. But a new election brings in a bunch of new do weller's and they now want booze illegal. Now the surveillance is done for both!. And with 27,000 pages of federal crimes, we are all guilty.

2) In regards to mass surveillance, data could/is be collected that could implicate you, but if you have nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear right?
Not really. Imagine if you are at a bar because of the burritos, and you don't drink any alcohol. But the cameras pick your car's license plate up there a couple times a week. This info is given to the insurance companies and next thing you know jacked insurance rates or no insurance due to surveillance cam proof of your bar fly habits.
Or you are helping dis-advantaged home owners in the inner city fix plumbing in their house, many churches sponsor this. But there is a known drug house next door, but your car is parked in the area, GOT YA. Again the "privilege" of driving may be in jeopardy or child protective services gets involved. Have fun in court. This turns into self censorship, and that isn't freedom.




3) Laws must be broken for society to progress: A society which can enforce all of its laws will stop dead in its tracks. The mindset of “rounding up criminals is good for society” is a very dangerous one, for in hindsight, it may turn out that the criminals were the ones in the moral right. Less than a human lifetime ago, if you were born a homosexual, you were criminal from birth. If today’s surveillance level had existed in the 1950s and 60s, the lobby groups for sexual equality could never have formed; it would have been just a matter of rounding up the organized criminals (“and who could possibly object to fighting organized crime?”).



This is a good point and one that I have never heard before. I think MJ will be another example of people doing something that should be handled like beer, and we will look back on it and wonder what were we thinking.
If the govt/corps could monitor the food we eat can you imagine that. No health insurance, and we (govt/corps) don't care if you don't like sage infused broccoli loaf, no health insurance for you. If/when we have Minority Report surveillance, govt/corps can really put the screws to you (more).




4) Four – Privacy is a basic human need: Implying that only the dishonest people have need of any privacy ignores a basic property of the human psyche, and sends a creepy message of strong discomfort. We have a fundamental need for privacy.


I put a small lock on my locker that I put my crappy coat in and my even crappier shoes in, does anyone want to steal hell no. But I want my stuff locked but am I hiding something, no, but I demand my privacy.

I left out our own person tracking device that we call cell phones. These are a very dangerous tool too.

Am I looking at this issue that is going to get more heated correctly?


falkvinge.net...



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I've never used that particular argument to justify body cameras or vehicle-mounted cameras, and in reality, your assertion is not accurate--or, at the least, not comparing apples to apples--because the argument FOR the cameras is a means of protection for both the officer AND the civilian. It's not the same as planting a camera on a street corner and constantly recording the unsuspecting general public--THAT is a surveillance camera, and that is different from a body camera that is there for the sole purpose of documenting what occurs during an interaction between officers and civilians.

So, yes, the if-they-have-nothing-to-hide argument is weak, no matter how it is used, and while you are correct that it's a weak argument FOR body/vehicle cameras, it isn't exactly an argument that need be used in that instance, nor is it one that I have ever proposed concerning this subject.

But I guess it begs the question--who here has used said argument in this thread FOR the cameras? I sure didn't, so I'm confused as to why you chose me as your target for making this point...



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

My responce was general, in responce to your assertion. I made no claim that you personally made such a statement, only that the same argument was used and dismissed out of hand in a similar situation.

The two situations are indeed different. A private citizens has a reasonable expectation of some measure of privacy in their day-to-day life. A police officer on duty should have no such expectation; their actions under their umbrella of authority invite public exposure and scrutiny. That is why we have an open court system. Those accused of a crime have every right to defend themselves publicly against their accuser. In the case of a criminal charges, the accuser is the state, and the police officer is an agent of the state. As such, every word or action made or taken by a police officer should be available for scrutiny. The state does not have a right to scrutinize actions of citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. As such, there is no reason for the state to use cameras on the general public.

Based on your post, I believe we are in agreement on this issue. Your post made an excellent point which I tried to reinforce.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join