I could see it getting difficult for a police officer in the field. Do I turn on my camera' date=' read them their rights, and then take them into custody? Or was that read them their rights,....[/quote']

 

Miranda really has nothing to do with the camera.

In the long run, a winner. They'll go out and find someone who is willing to meet their requirements.

 

I'm thinking a more thorough understanding of the law would be a must for officers in this situation. I'm not sure how that equates to less qualified officers. If anything, I'd think officers having a better understanding of the law would make for a more qualified force.

 

In both cases it potentially stifles creativity.

 

Now if your company wants a robot instead of you then maybe they will be a winner in the long run.

 

And as to officers, hiring yes men and yes women (because that is the direction it will go in that line of work) has the potential to be really bad.

I could see it getting difficult for a police officer in the field. Do I turn on my camera, read them their rights, and then take them into custody? Or was that read them their rights,....

 

Of course that will eventually be the requirement (having the camera on for everything or it didn't happen and the police officer is a crook).

 

We are already in a society where if you don't have video of it, it didn't happen. Yes I am exaggerating but you get the point.

I can try to explain better later. On my phone now and don't feel like typing that much on it :lol2:

 

I'll try to help you out on this one.

 

Basically 'custody' in the legal sense is: "believing that, under the circumstances presented, a 'reasonable' person would have felt that they were not free to go. Oversimplified definition, but that's basically it." If a person feels like they are being deprived of their freedom in some significant way, and the situation would make most other people feel the same, then they be in 'custody' (but that could mean a custodial interrogation or arrest).

In both cases it potentially stifles creativity.

 

Now if your company wants a robot instead of you then maybe they will be a winner in the long run.

 

And as to officers, hiring yes men and yes women (because that is the direction it will go in that line of work) has the potential to be really bad.

 

How is having a full understanding of the law hiring yes men and women? Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I expect officers of the law to act within the law while performing their job at all times.

How is having a full understanding of the law hiring yes men and women? Maybe I'm in the minority here' date=' but I expect officers of the law to act within the law while performing their job at all times.[/quote']

 

What makes you think officers now don't have a full understanding of the law? Or that most don't already act within the law while performing their jobs?

What makes you think officers now don't have a full understanding of the law? Or that most don't already act within the law while performing their jobs?

 

When did I say anything remotely like that?

How is having a full understanding of the law hiring yes men and women? Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I expect officers of the law to act within the law while performing their job at all times.

 

I think I am answering your question, I am saying I believe this is the type of people/personalities that will function well in a big brother working environment.

Make no mistake about it, I'd venture 90-95% of all officers already do their job on a daily basis well within the letter of the law and have a perfectly good understanding of the law. This would change absolutely nothing for them.

 

For the small % of officers who may stretch their responsibilities, or use excessive force in an incident or may just flat out not know the law, this will do one of 2 things....a) force them to start following proper procedure, or b) expose them and lead to them being replaced with an officer who does follow the law.

 

I don't see a downside to that, and I'm not sure how that is, as Guru said, "hiring yes men and women". :idunno:

I think I am answering your question, I am saying I believe this is the type of people/personalities that will function well in a big brother working environment.

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but it sounds to me like you're advocating officers skirting procedure and the law while doing their jobs.

When did I say anything remotely like that?

 

I guess your posts regarding these topics and cameras made me think that you believe there are issues in law enforcement related to officers not knowing or acting within the law...and that cameras would help that.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but it sounds to me like you're advocating officers skirting procedure and the law while doing their jobs.

 

If you want Snow White, Mother Teresa, and Gandhi on your police force have at it!

I guess your posts regarding these topics and cameras made me think that you believe there are issues in law enforcement related to officers not knowing or acting within the law...and that cameras would help that.

 

As I said in my next post, the overwhelming majority of officers know the law and follow proper procedure. However, you'd be extremely naïve if you didn't admit that there are undoubtedly some that don't. For those that do, this will change nothing. If anything, it'll safeguard them from bogus brutality claims and the like.

If you want Snow White, Mother Teresa, and Gandhi on your police force have at it!

 

So citizens are supposed to follow the law, but officers aren't supposed to follow procedure?

So citizens are supposed to follow the law, but officers aren't supposed to follow procedure?

 

Not what I am saying at all.

 

It's gym time for Bonzo.