TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:Once again, cameras would have resolved this issue quickly.... And protected those officers that didn't do anything wrong.

Make it available were the officer so choose to take advantage of the cover yourself benefit....but to require it would be an invasion of another sort...

RogueUSMC wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:Once again, cameras would have resolved this issue quickly.... And protected those officers that didn't do anything wrong.

Make it available were the officer so choose to take advantage of the cover yourself benefit....but to require it would be an invasion of another sort...

Invasion of what? I understand in a private workplace, but when your job is to protect and serve the public, your actions should be a matter of public record. Additionally, I frame it as something that benefits good officers.. I simply can't think of a valid reason not to have cameras.

At a minimum, lights on, camera active.. That might resolve your privacy concern, but it's a public duty and public job. We're owed transparency.

mojo84 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

polly wrote:

EEllis wrote:First can only arrest a person not a car.

Likewise, one can only unlawfully restrain a person not a car.

A car can be unlawfully impounded.

Did the lady impound their car?

I don't think so.

Your comment has me .

That was kind of off the wall.

DocV wrote:The Malinois, the Tabby cat and I are roasting Marshmallows on the campfire and singing Kumbaya. Ya'll come on over.

I don't believe you. I have never seen a Maligator willingly sit still unless it was asleep.

gigag04 wrote:[ Image ]

Lol, right!?

C-dub wrote:

DocV wrote:The Malinois, the Tabby cat and I are roasting Marshmallows on the campfire and singing Kumbaya. Ya'll come on over.

I don't believe you. I have never seen a Maligator willingly sit still unless it was asleep.

Yup. Ya caught me. Her attention drifted after the main course of hotdogs. Of course, she is only 1/2 Maligator. The rest is 1/4 Malibee and 1/4 Malimess.

cb1000rider wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:Once again, cameras would have resolved this issue quickly.... And protected those officers that didn't do anything wrong.

Make it available were the officer so choose to take advantage of the cover yourself benefit....but to require it would be an invasion of another sort...

Invasion of what? I understand in a private workplace, but when your job is to protect and serve the public, your actions should be a matter of public record. Additionally, I frame it as something that benefits good officers.. I simply can't think of a valid reason not to have cameras.

There are plenty of private workplaces that have 24x7 video surveillance in public areas. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I don't think it's unreasonable for the people paying the salaries to know what their employees are doing on the clock.