SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the eye-think-we-are-being-watched dept.
A pilot program was scheduled to start last week. But after no officers volunteered, Commissioner William Evans ordered 100 officers to wear the cameras. That prompted the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association to ask a judge to issue an injunction to halt the program until a new agreement can be negotiated.
Union President Patrick Rose testified Tuesday that the city violated its agreement with the union when Evans assigned officers to what was supposed to be an all-volunteer program. Rose acknowledged that he told members not to volunteer for the program before the union had reached an agreement with the city.
[...] Evans said he wants the program to begin next week and believes it's within his authority as police commissioner to order officers to wear the cameras.
No word on whether or not the Commissioner volunteered to wear a camera.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:26PM
No camera, No gun.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:03PM
I'm with you - but let's take their tin stars away too.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday September 08 2016, @07:39PM
Badges? Badges?! Let them have their steenking badges.
No camera, no gun sounds like a good start - but, in reality, anybody who signs up for the job "protector of the people" really needs to be accountable for their actions as an officer of the law, whether on or off duty. We the "protected people" need to get a little more realistic about what is acceptable behavior in the police; for instance: yes, they should be able to cause some level of physical discomfort and even harm when arresting dangerous people. But, there shouldn't be any actions taken out of oversight that are any different than they would be if judges, politicians, and the policed citizens were watching.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @01:40PM
For reference a commercial drivers license holder, at least in my state, gets double penalties for any and all traffic violations. On or off the job. That sounds like a good start for peace officers. They get double penalties for *EVERYTHING* on and off the job. If that is too stressful for them they can always quit and go private security (at least until we get them hit with a similiar double penalty.)
The problem with this of course is they would actually have to be brought up on charges, and as well all know usually when a crime/violation arises among cops, das, and judges they all help wash each other's hands...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:19PM
Does the reverse apply then - no gun, no camera?
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:31PM
No, they need to keep the guns so they can threaten violence. You can change it to "no camera, no presumption of a clean shoot (in fact, presumption of a dirty one)"
(Score: 4, Touché) by bob_super on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:09PM
No camera no bullets, then.