Southern Republicans!

[JakeStarkey]

Open government is necessary in this day and age.

Access to police video is essential.

 

[Iceweasel]

not all republicans north or south are assholes, just most of them.

Everything looks like asshole when your head is up your ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

not all republicans north or south are assholes, just most of them.

Everything looks like asshole when your head is up your ass.

First hand knowledge on your part.

 

[Missourian]

MO isn't southern, it was a boarder state

What is a boarder state?

A state that wasn't technically part of the South. But technically or not, Missouri was and is a Southern State. The Federal Government illegally ousted the lawfully elected government and installed a Union sympathetic governor under a federal occupation of the state.

Missouri was placed under Marshall Law in 1861 by order of General Freemont.

Governor Claiborne Jackson maintained a government-in-exile, first in Neosho Missouri, then later in Arkansas.

 

[Foxfyre]

And it definitely is worthy of discussion whether the public should have automatic access to police videos produced by body cams. The violation of the public's right to privacy also has to be a consideration. Do you want your traffic ticket to go viral on YouTube? You get stopped for routine questioning when you're in hair curlers and your bathrobe and no makeup trying to get your kid to school on time? You are innocently present at an embarrassing scene and get caught on camera?

Where does the ability of us to keep cops accountable end and our rights to go about our private lives without being under constant surveillance of the public begin?

I think that the need to keep a check on police powers (and the ability to hide videos they do not want you to see) outweighs your ‘privacy’ rights in a public setting like this.
I don’t see anything inherently wrong in them sponsoring a bill like this but I disagree with it.

I can appreciate where you are coming from, and I am weighing all the pros and cons because I too think police misconduct cannot be tolerated, but I also can't accept an Orwellian kind of government surveillance that allows almost no privacy. The innocent bystander, the woman who has been raped or beaten up, the old man who was mugged etc. should not have to worry about those images being plastered all over the internet.

Given the really low incidents of police misconduct before video surveillance was really feasible and when compared to the millions of police interaction with individuals that involves no police misconduct of any kind, I am leaning toward allowing the authorities discretion in what is made public.

 

[Pete7469]

That's because you either haven't thought it through, want to score political points, wish to bash my state and Southerners or you're not very bright...but likely all of the above.

Let's say you have a break-in at your home, or a trespassing call, or the police respond to a medical emergency. Do you want every swinging dick in the country to have access to the video of you and your family and the inside of your home?

I sure as hell don't.

And I don't want the government to spend millions blurring out the faces on thousands and thousands of hours of body cam footage to protect peoples privacy.

What is the third alternative?

That's a great point and I didn't consider it.

In general I don't like the idea of the government withholding of public record, but you are correct that not everyone who is on a police camera should have that exposed to the public arbitrarily.

Not sure what the 3rd alternative is that wouldn't mean costly court hearings.

 

[Missourian]

That's because you either haven't thought it through, want to score political points, wish to bash my state and Southerners or you're not very bright...but likely all of the above.

Let's say you have a break-in at your home, or a trespassing call, or the police respond to a medical emergency. Do you want every swinging dick in the country to have access to the video of you and your family and the inside of your home?

I sure as hell don't.

And I don't want the government to spend millions blurring out the faces on thousands and thousands of hours of body cam footage to protect peoples privacy.

What is the third alternative?

That's a great point and I didn't consider it.

In general I don't like the idea of the government withholding of public record, but you are correct that not everyone who is on a police camera should have that exposed to the public arbitrarily.

Not sure what the 3rd alternative is that wouldn't mean costly court hearings.

I'm not sure about a third option either. Perhaps a civilian oversight committee, or a fee for access to cover the cost of scrubbing the video, or a media (press) based oversight.

There will be some compromise that will protect privacy, and limit cost while at the same time serve the peoples interest in police oversight and accountability.

 

[S.J.]

That's because you either haven't thought it through, want to score political points, wish to bash my state and Southerners or you're not very bright...but likely all of the above.

Let's say you have a break-in at your home, or a trespassing call, or the police respond to a medical emergency. Do you want every swinging dick in the country to have access to the video of you and your family and the inside of your home?

I sure as hell don't.

And I don't want the government to spend millions blurring out the faces on thousands and thousands of hours of body cam footage to protect peoples privacy.

What is the third alternative?

That's a great point and I didn't consider it.

In general I don't like the idea of the government withholding of public record, but you are correct that not everyone who is on a police camera should have that exposed to the public arbitrarily.

Not sure what the 3rd alternative is that wouldn't mean costly court hearings.

I'm not sure about a third option either. Perhaps a civilian oversight committee, or a fee for access to cover the cost of scrubbing the video, or a media (press) based oversight.

There will be some compromise that will protect privacy, and limit cost while at the same time serve the peoples interest in police oversight and accountability.

That sounds like the best suggestion so far.

 

[Agit8r]

To me they are all a bunch of racist greedy power hungry sociopaths! They don't belong in the 21st Century!

Didn't we already know that? Just from everything they say...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Missouri bill would ban public access to police camera footage The Kansas City Star The Kansas City Star

To me they are all a bunch of racist greedy power hungry sociopaths! They don't belong in the 21st Century!

Really? I can distinctly remember some liberals saying they should join the 21st Century. Perhaps they belong in the 22nd?

 

[Agit8r]

MO isn't southern, it was a boarder state

What is a boarder state?

MO isn't southern, it was a boarder state

What is a boarder state?

I would assume that it is what's referred to as a "border state" in the North. Except that it isn't a border state...