Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:08PM   Printer-friendly
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.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/27f263abcce6437d893274792062625a/boston-police-union-goes-court-after-bodycam-resistance

No word on whether or not the Commissioner volunteered to wear a camera.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:36PM (#399224)

    No word on whether or not the Commissioner volunteered to wear a camera.

    Boston police commissioner is not a police officer, numbnut.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:50PM (#399234)

    The comment was not present in the original submission, numbnut.

    Either way, there is no reason for name-calling. Your post quality would improve if you described how the analogy was poorly choosen because of the clear difference in duties or the relative importance of a visual record of police interaction with the public during different situations (e.g. traffic stop vs. domestic violence).

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:20PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:20PM (#399260)

      Either way, there is no reason for name-calling.

      How nice, after you called me a numbnut. Nevertheless, corrected, cmn the editor is the numbnut, not the submitter.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:40PM (#399308)

        You got off easy. You aren't a numbnut, you are clearly a full-blown dumbass.
        When someone argues that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" responding that the gander is not a goose is to utterly miss the fucking point you goddamn autistic moron.