- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Just watched BRPD open a trucks door without owner or warrant at Chelsea's
Posted on 1/1/15 at 10:51 am to bubbz
Posted on 1/1/15 at 10:51 am to bubbz
quote:
your vehicle is an extension of your home
So there isn't a vehicle exception to the 4th Amdendment that doesn't apply to the home?
Arizona v. Gant
Did the vehicle get towed? Another excepton may apply.
1
Posted on 1/1/15 at 11:13 am to Sal Minella
Carroll doesn't apply to homes, it's specific to vehicles. Gant is specific to vehicles too I believe, but deals with searching after an arrest if I remember correctly
Posted on 1/1/15 at 11:23 am to WDE24
quote:
The castle doctrine, as it relates to self defense, has been extended to one's vehicle. It doesn't mean your vehicle is an extension of your home in any context.
Ding ding ding. Correct answer.
Posted on 1/1/15 at 11:40 am to RupertPupkin
The BRPD needs to require all officers to wear body cameras and this would stop.
They also need to design more ergonomic body cameras.
When an officer is offered employment with the city they have to sign a notice stating wearing a camera is apart of their employment,
If the camera is turned off by the officer or not worn the officer should be terminated immediately.
The videos should be available online within 24 hrs after an incident and on the citation a code should be available to access the video. If any citizen request any video the dept should have a system in place to disclose that video to the citizen no later than 24 hours after the request. If the video is not disclosed the dept which includes the chief, supervisors, and officers should be held liable criminally of no less than 30 days in jail and no more than 6 months in jail along with personal fines paid to the city and citizen requesting the video.
Having everything on video protects the officer, city, and citizens.
They also need to design more ergonomic body cameras.
When an officer is offered employment with the city they have to sign a notice stating wearing a camera is apart of their employment,
If the camera is turned off by the officer or not worn the officer should be terminated immediately.
The videos should be available online within 24 hrs after an incident and on the citation a code should be available to access the video. If any citizen request any video the dept should have a system in place to disclose that video to the citizen no later than 24 hours after the request. If the video is not disclosed the dept which includes the chief, supervisors, and officers should be held liable criminally of no less than 30 days in jail and no more than 6 months in jail along with personal fines paid to the city and citizen requesting the video.
Having everything on video protects the officer, city, and citizens.
Posted on 1/1/15 at 11:41 am to magildachunks
quote:
magildachunks
Idiot...
Posted on 1/1/15 at 12:42 pm to johnnyrocket
That's all good and well until BRPD requests $15 million dollars for 100 GoPro cameras and people shut it down because of that. They will find a way to make it not happen.
Police unions are pretty powerful, and if they don't want something to happen, it probably won't.
Police unions are pretty powerful, and if they don't want something to happen, it probably won't.
Posted on 1/1/15 at 12:43 pm to RummelTiger
What's your problem ?
Posted on 1/1/15 at 12:50 pm to Hammertime
15 million dollars would be excessive for 100 gopros.
Posted on 1/1/15 at 12:52 pm to Hammertime
Maybe 40 thousand
Posted on 1/1/15 at 12:53 pm to johnnyrocket
quote:
The BRPD needs to require all officers to wear body cameras and this would stop.
They also need to design more ergonomic body cameras.
When an officer is offered employment with the city they have to sign a notice stating wearing a camera is apart of their employment,
If the camera is turned off by the officer or not worn the officer should be terminated immediately.
The videos should be available online within 24 hrs after an incident and on the citation a code should be available to access the video. If any citizen request any video the dept should have a system in place to disclose that video to the citizen no later than 24 hours after the request. If the video is not disclosed the dept which includes the chief, supervisors, and officers should be held liable criminally of no less than 30 days in jail and no more than 6 months in jail along with personal fines paid to the city and citizen requesting the video.
Having everything on video protects the officer, city, and citizens.
Why not hire a Prosecutor, Judge and ACLU monitor to ride with and watch every police officer every shift? Because that idea is just as implementable as yours. How in the hell do you think your idea gets funded? Who pays for the techs to download and maintain all that data? Who runs and manages that database? Who handles all the privacy lawsuits from people accessing footage of your interactions with an officer in your home when they are there on a complaint? As I have said before, Holder and Obama start talking cameras and people who can't think on their own parrot the idea. No one bothers to critically think beyond the basic concept to practical implementation.
Posted on 1/1/15 at 12:57 pm to jbgleason
I love when people have suggestions for what should happen with no insight on how to make it happen.
Posted on 1/1/15 at 1:03 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Why not hire a Prosecutor, Judge and ACLU monitor to ride with and watch every police officer every shift? Because that idea is just as implementable as yours. How in the hell do you think your idea gets funded? Who pays for the techs to download and maintain all that data? Who runs and manages that database? Who handles all the privacy lawsuits from people accessing footage of your interactions with an officer in your home when they are there on a complaint? As I have said before, Holder and Obama start talking cameras and people who can't think on their own parrot the idea. No one bothers to critically think beyond the basic concept to practical implementation.
Well, I would argue that it would easily reduce court costs, and would have saved tons of businesses in the Micheal Brown situation.
The question I have is, who's paying for all the wifi and laptops the police have already? Who is servicing those laptops for their charging needs and data issues? Where are the police getting information for high tech crimes? Who's doing all the data processing to figure out crime rates and other various police tools?
It's not like the bigger police forces are collective morons about technology with zero IT departments or IT contractors. Why couldn't go-pro data be treated like regular potential evidence? It's not like the police don't understand practical evidence systems and don't already have those in place.
Instead of using actual logic about how it could work, you just throw your hands up and offer an excuse that makes the entire United States police force look like neanderthals.
This post was edited on 1/1/15 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 1/1/15 at 1:23 pm to johnnyrocket
quote:
The BRPD needs to require all officers to wear body cameras and this would stop.
Cops all over the country have already discovered that they can just turn off the camera or delete the evidence and then say it was turned off and be completely justified.
The reason?
HIPPA. They can turn the camera off if they think there may be a "medical situation" involved. There was a veteran who was shot in his home a few days ago and people were trying to figure out what happened but they said the cop's camera was off because he was responding to a call where somebody was injured.
Posted on 1/1/15 at 2:31 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
a quick google search will give you a plethora of information on the subject, jackass.
And yet you can't answer his question?
Posted on 1/1/15 at 3:35 pm to jbgleason
Why don't you ask police departments across the country who have already implemented this system how they deal with it
Also maybe they can sell some of tools used to wage war such as personnel carriers to pay the costs
Also maybe they can sell some of tools used to wage war such as personnel carriers to pay the costs
Posted on 1/1/15 at 4:17 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
HIPPA. They can turn the camera off if they think there may be a "medical situation" involved. There was a veteran who was shot in his home a few days ago and people were trying to figure out what happened but they said the cop's camera was off because he was responding to a call where somebody was injured.
Obviously there are issues that need to be worked out, but I'm relatively certain this would quickly go out the window. Heck, there are multiple surgeries on youtube that you can watch. I'm assuming it'd be something to the effect of if you call the cops, your HIPPA rights will be suspended to the effect of the film, and deleted by an independent contractor if it is an issue.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News