When I act like a dick to a police officer I get exactly what most white men over 50 get - nothing. Why? Because it is my right. I don't have to show anyone respect and if I let a police officer know it they can over react and I will own their ass or they can control themselves and follow the law. The problem is that when they are facing someone they feel they can take advantage of many do so.
No one is due respect just for who they are or what they do for a living. No one. It is up to each individual to decide who they wish to show respect. Except... a police officer is expected to respect the law at ALL times and be in control of their adrenaline rushes.
What happened? Legislative bodies created bad laws that the citizenry did not agree with. In the last half century for instance, the 55 MPH speed limit taught the general population that police were the enemy.
Way before that, police were used to break unions and enforce the have for those that already had against the have nots.
It all started in 1847 in the US.
If we are to have a discussion on how to fix things then we need to roll back the frame of reference for the discussion concerning policing to before 1847 when police forces were put in place and put everything on the table.
Ah, back in the good old days when everyone in your town knew about your past and would happily hold it against you to the point that you might feel the need to uproot and move across the country where it was legal for someone to follow you, point, and shriek like you were a body snatcher.
There is a need to differentiate between workplace disciple and possible criminal investigation.
I would suggest that any contract that allows access to evidence in a criminal investigation is itself illegal and can not be made with an officer or the union because doing so would create a special class that would have equal protection problems.
Maybe if there is a question the department should temporarily forgo the discipline issue and should be more willing to conduct a criminal investigation independent of the department and union relationship should reasonable suspicion arise.
Related to this, Fiat Chrysler instructs their dealers to activate these systems before a new car leaves the lot. The end user isn't always the one who "accepts" the license agreement so no contract exists.
With a signal repeater you can bridge the distance between phone and car so that "proximity" is several hundred feet and security protocols don't need to be broken if transmission delay isn't computed.
Movie studios and records companies have always made their money off the experience and have treated the content increasingly as having little importance. That is why they are hated by their own customers and the artists who create their content. That is because they are increasingly not creating art, but instead are creating product. I listen to music for the emotion it invokes, which usually has to pour out of some artist's soul. Sure, as the maker of my own experience sometimes a riff or backbeat will be in tune with my experience and I will get off on one of their products, but it rarely makes be a repeat customer where I might follow an artist that I find appealing. The difference is not the point you originally made nor the point of this article. The point is that artistic content is still king and these distributors only produce product. They have steadily been losing sales per capita for the last 35 years. It isn't new media that is killing them, it is that with the advent of United Artists and now the indies, the art is somewhere else. They are no longer the incubators of art so people buy less of their product. With sales down they have tried to move their distribution to keep up with the technologies that make it easy for people to experience their product, but they have missed the point that technology in the end will make them superfulous. They will die.
In a 2012 case, for example, an NSA analyst “searched her spouse’s personal telephone directory without his knowledge to obtain names and telephone numbers for targeting,” according to one report. The analyst “has been advised to cease her activities,” it said.
Did she have access to "her spouse's personal telephone directory" through the NSA?
If someone says, "Yes, you may enter my home IF you turn off your camera" in a case where a warrant would normally be required what is the procedure?
Do they not enter? Do they turn off their camera? Do they enter pretending their camera is turned off and then deal with the lawsuit later? What happens if while in the home the person that gave them that conditional approval discovers that their terms are not met and forcibly removes the officer from the premises?
Cool. "Thrown in jail" is just another point in the conversation with the decade long legal public discussion popping up in press every few years that goes along with it. At some point, it WILL happen. Waiting...
Do I have to be the ONE that adds that talking point? Am I just a pussy that is too afraid to push? Opportunity missing?
Is this post is getting to be more and more just one more piece of evidence at some future trial? Does it matter if it is formed in the form of a question? If cops can lie, can the citizenry, especially when in "just" a blog? Or is a posting "absolute"?