This isn't going to stop until police officers who abuse their authority face real consequences. They won't because their victims are never anyone with real wealth and influence.Prosecutors aren't willing to touch this sort of case. There should be a national registry of officers fired for misconduct that makes them ineligible for rehire in all jurisdictions, but police unions and the politicians they back would never let it happen.
Also might stop if we remove the surveillance aperatus that allows any officer anywhere to violate the privacy of anyone. The flock cameras help facilitate crime and oppression and they need to go.
> There should be a national registry of officers fired for misconduct that makes them ineligible for rehire in all jurisdictions
There is/was (though Trump has largely de-fanged it) - tracks officers fired or who resigned in lieu of termination.
> but police unions and the politicians they back would never let it happen.
Correct again. The Unions that represent ~70% of police across the country have managed to get into their CBAs that the database is not to be used for hiring or promotion decisions (i.e. not to be used).
> The officer and his relative were not criminally charged.
> The department said it has changed its policy to restrict Flock data and all other law enforcement sensitive systems from being accessed on officers’ personal devices.
So next time, they can wait 'til they get to work to stalk people?
I would believe them if they actually charged him with a crime. It seems like they want police officers to have access to this data but just don't want the public to know the extent of their inexcusable behavior.
Fun fact: More officers have gotten in trouble, arrested, or fired for misusing Flock Safety (YC '17) products than there are transgender athletes in sports.
This isn't going to stop until police officers who abuse their authority face real consequences. They won't because their victims are never anyone with real wealth and influence.Prosecutors aren't willing to touch this sort of case. There should be a national registry of officers fired for misconduct that makes them ineligible for rehire in all jurisdictions, but police unions and the politicians they back would never let it happen.
Also might stop if we remove the surveillance aperatus that allows any officer anywhere to violate the privacy of anyone. The flock cameras help facilitate crime and oppression and they need to go.
> There should be a national registry of officers fired for misconduct that makes them ineligible for rehire in all jurisdictions
There is/was (though Trump has largely de-fanged it) - tracks officers fired or who resigned in lieu of termination.
> but police unions and the politicians they back would never let it happen.
Correct again. The Unions that represent ~70% of police across the country have managed to get into their CBAs that the database is not to be used for hiring or promotion decisions (i.e. not to be used).
> The officer and his relative were not criminally charged.
> The department said it has changed its policy to restrict Flock data and all other law enforcement sensitive systems from being accessed on officers’ personal devices.
So next time, they can wait 'til they get to work to stalk people?
I would believe them if they actually charged him with a crime. It seems like they want police officers to have access to this data but just don't want the public to know the extent of their inexcusable behavior.
Fun fact: More officers have gotten in trouble, arrested, or fired for misusing Flock Safety (YC '17) products than there are transgender athletes in sports.
Tip of the iceberg. And he only got fired.