Reclaiming for the nitpickers. A police action is any action taken by an officer of the law in their capacity as such. In other words, police should have no privacy in their official capacity.
Think about it this way, Clint; this way you won't miss _any_ of the beatings.
Also, if these recordings existed, then private citizens wouldn't have to risk being harassed or harmed by providing recordings of their own.
Of course, you'd need something to ensure that the recording devices didn't 'magically' get turned off or have their data lost or destroyed on a regular basis.
I'm no fan of the cops, but having their every move recorded? It seems a bit extreme. Yes there are crooked cops, but I'm sure most of them are decent people and should be treated as such.
This seems like a reactionary, emotional notion. They police us? Well, we're gonna police them. Sounds good on the surface, but if I were in their shoes I would feel violated by this sort of thing. Treating them all as criminals seems no better than them treating all of us as criminals, just easier to rationalize.
I have a brother-in-law who's a cop. He's a genuinely good person, and he wanted to become a cop to help people. I would rather he be guided by his own decency than by some beauricratic set of rules that he dare not deviate from in range of Big Brother's camera.
Clint: Welcome to the real world. Power requires safeguards. If you don't want to subject yourself to the safeguards, you don't have to. This is the opposite of the totalitarianism you seem to ascribe to it.
I don't care how nice a guy your brother-in-law is. He has the power to give me orders; he might never abuse that power. But somebody will, and we can't know ahead of time which is which. Those rules you deride as "bureaucratic" are essential to your freedom and mine.
D`A: Do you prefer your snowflakes to be duplicative, or chaste? I'm kind of digging some hot(?) snowflake on snowflake action. "Yeah, baby, I'll show you some symmetry!" Oooo, snowflake twins... yeah, that's the ticket. Somebody find me some of that on the internet.
Clint: Okay. I'll make you a deal. I'm willing to relax on the bureaucracy if you'll accept the cameras universally. Although, to be perfectly honest, there are probably not as many bureaucratic rules (at least enforced) as you think they are. If there were, there would be a lot more police officers suspended (without pay) or fired, just from the tapes we have managed to get.
You could also think of it another way; as a way for your brother to, at the same time, defend himself against any baseless accusations from the people he serves and to help him by automatically collecting relatively indisputable evidence. Think of the time he'll save writing notes!
Discussion (9)
There are instances when security services will withold recordings, but I agree.
I do take issue with the amount of time taken for security services to release information publicly.
Sounds boring. I only want to watch the beatings.
Anyway, it's hard to work with someone looking over your shoulder, and cops need to be on the ball.
Think about it this way, Clint; this way you won't miss _any_ of the beatings.
Also, if these recordings existed, then private citizens wouldn't have to risk being harassed or harmed by providing recordings of their own.
Of course, you'd need something to ensure that the recording devices didn't 'magically' get turned off or have their data lost or destroyed on a regular basis.
I'm no fan of the cops, but having their every move recorded? It seems a bit extreme. Yes there are crooked cops, but I'm sure most of them are decent people and should be treated as such.
This seems like a reactionary, emotional notion. They police us? Well, we're gonna police them. Sounds good on the surface, but if I were in their shoes I would feel violated by this sort of thing. Treating them all as criminals seems no better than them treating all of us as criminals, just easier to rationalize.
I have a brother-in-law who's a cop. He's a genuinely good person, and he wanted to become a cop to help people. I would rather he be guided by his own decency than by some beauricratic set of rules that he dare not deviate from in range of Big Brother's camera.
Clint: Welcome to the real world. Power requires safeguards. If you don't want to subject yourself to the safeguards, you don't have to. This is the opposite of the totalitarianism you seem to ascribe to it.
I don't care how nice a guy your brother-in-law is. He has the power to give me orders; he might never abuse that power. But somebody will, and we can't know ahead of time which is which. Those rules you deride as "bureaucratic" are essential to your freedom and mine.
D'A
... tired of unique fucking snowflakes
D`A: Do you prefer your snowflakes to be duplicative, or chaste? I'm kind of digging some hot(?) snowflake on snowflake action. "Yeah, baby, I'll show you some symmetry!" Oooo, snowflake twins... yeah, that's the ticket. Somebody find me some of that on the internet.
Clint: Okay. I'll make you a deal. I'm willing to relax on the bureaucracy if you'll accept the cameras universally. Although, to be perfectly honest, there are probably not as many bureaucratic rules (at least enforced) as you think they are. If there were, there would be a lot more police officers suspended (without pay) or fired, just from the tapes we have managed to get.
You could also think of it another way; as a way for your brother to, at the same time, defend himself against any baseless accusations from the people he serves and to help him by automatically collecting relatively indisputable evidence. Think of the time he'll save writing notes!
Slarti: I think that's "unique snowflakes fucking". Which is different from "unique snowflake fucking". Hooray for pedantry.
D'A
[[...and aired on cable channels 6500-36000 too.]]