PDA

View Full Version : Liberal senators want the political correctness thought police watching Mounties



moahunter
22-02-2010, 12:49 PM
I am very glad this group of unelected #$%$% will no longer have power:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mounties-should-have-cameras-on-their-uniforms-senators-say/article1476809/


Mounties should have cameras on their uniforms, senators say
A Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer walks in the foyer of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa on January 29, 2010.
Position paper released by Liberal members of Senate security committee calls for better oversight of RCMP, along with more funding and increased diversity

If we want police to have some flexibility to actually make our streets safer, the last thing we need is the political correctness thought police watching over every action they take.

Wrecker
22-02-2010, 01:16 PM
How about the senators wear one, then we can keep tabs on what they're doing.

MrOilers
22-02-2010, 01:55 PM
I am all for increased "diversity", but not at the expense of turning down perfectly good RCMP applicants because they don't fit some kind of pre-determined genetic profile.

Komrade
22-02-2010, 03:20 PM
Great idea! I support this 100%

Medwards
22-02-2010, 03:49 PM
Great idea! I support this 100%

And why do you support it? Does this help prevent us from going into a Police State?

And just how much would this cost taxpayers? What benefit would it be? Maybe we should instead force convicted criminals or even just repeat-offenders to wear these devices instead of the RCMP.

Komrade
22-02-2010, 05:35 PM
I support us because it will continue to ensure the police are doing their job correctly and can continue to improve service and relations with the police and general public.

It will ensure any situation where mis-conduct is accused to be properly investigated with sufficient evidence that is not based on 'he-said, she-said'

It is yet another step to ensure the citizens that police power is never abused, and when is can be held accountable.

RTA
22-02-2010, 08:58 PM
^ With the added bonus of protecting the police from allegations leveled against them.

Marcel Petrin
23-02-2010, 09:23 AM
^ With the added bonus of protecting the police from allegations leveled against them.

Exactly. Personally I support this. A policeman doing his job properly should have nothing to lose from this, and everything to gain. It would provide evidence to exonerate them or defend them from accusations of misconduct, if indeed the accusation was false or exaggerated.

I have no idea what "political correctness" has to do with this. At the very least, why not have them mic'd up so there's at least audio records of their actions?

But this aside, it's pretty obvious in the past couple years that the RCMP have some pretty fundamental problems, and cameras aren't going to fix those.

moahunter
23-02-2010, 09:26 AM
Exactly. Personally I support this. A policeman doing his job properly should have nothing to lose from this, and everything to gain. It would provide evidence to exonerate them or defend them from accusations of misconduct, if indeed the accusation was false or exaggerated.

So would you support as Medwards suggested, that we put cameras on convicted criminals? They are much more likely to commit a serious crime, than a Mountie is. Or, how about security guards, or prison officers? Could make for a good reality TV show though I guess, or perhaps they could open it up like big brother, and have public Mountie voyeurism on the web?

To me, this would just show a total lack of trust and respect for the 99% of Mounties who don't abuse their position. I have no issue with a camera that films everyone in public equally in an anonymous way, but when you start picking certain people as being "bad", and require them to be followed around with a camera, then I think it is getting pretty sad.

Libarbarian
23-02-2010, 11:27 AM
I am all for increased "diversity", but not at the expense of turning down perfectly good RCMP applicants because they don't fit some kind of pre-determined genetic profile.

Huh? Cameras on cops = a comment on hiring?

moahunter
23-02-2010, 11:33 AM
Huh? Cameras on cops = a comment on hiring?
The same senate body commented on both.

MrOilers
23-02-2010, 12:08 PM
I am all for increased "diversity", but not at the expense of turning down perfectly good RCMP applicants because they don't fit some kind of pre-determined genetic profile.

Huh? Cameras on cops = a comment on hiring?

I wasn't commenting on cameras. The same article recommends targeted hiring to increase diversity, which I commented on.

Komrade
23-02-2010, 12:57 PM
Exactly. Personally I support this. A policeman doing his job properly should have nothing to lose from this, and everything to gain. It would provide evidence to exonerate them or defend them from accusations of misconduct, if indeed the accusation was false or exaggerated.


To me, this would just show a total lack of trust and respect for the 99% of Mounties who don't abuse their position. I have no issue with a camera that films everyone in public equally in an anonymous way, but when you start picking certain people as being "bad", and require them to be followed around with a camera, then I think it is getting pretty sad.
Bull! What does this have to do with trust? My government should trust me yet Im monitored on multiple cameras in every facet of my every day life. I have done nothing wrong. Am I being picked on as 'bad'?

This helps the RCMP if anything. If you a good cop and you play by the rules, this shouldnt bother you at all. What do you have to loose if you do everything properly?

grish
23-02-2010, 01:15 PM
I am very glad this group of unelected #$%$% will no longer have power:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mounties-should-have-cameras-on-their-uniforms-senators-say/article1476809/


Mounties should have cameras on their uniforms, senators say
A Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer walks in the foyer of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa on January 29, 2010.
Position paper released by Liberal members of Senate security committee calls for better oversight of RCMP, along with more funding and increased diversity

If we want police to have some flexibility to actually make our streets safer, the last thing we need is the political correctness thought police watching over every action they take.
The thread title, your reaction to the story, and the list of reccommendations do not match.

This has nothing to do with the thought police. It has everything to do with transparency and oversight on the one hand and an effective use of technology as a crime fighting tool on the other.

The hiring of women and minorities bit... it does not say that the standards should be lowered. It says that the RCMP should become an option for more qualified people who are women and/ or in the minority. I did not read anywhere that a qualified candidate who isn't a female or a member of a minority will be turned down.

armin
23-02-2010, 01:20 PM
Exactly. Personally I support this. A policeman doing his job properly should have nothing to lose from this, and everything to gain. It would provide evidence to exonerate them or defend them from accusations of misconduct, if indeed the accusation was false or exaggerated.

So would you support as Medwards suggested, that we put cameras on convicted criminals? They are much more likely to commit a serious crime, than a Mountie is. Or, how about security guards, or prison officers? Could make for a good reality TV show though I guess, or perhaps they could open it up like big brother, and have public Mountie voyeurism on the web?

To me, this would just show a total lack of trust and respect for the 99% of Mounties who don't abuse their position. I have no issue with a camera that films everyone in public equally in an anonymous way, but when you start picking certain people as being "bad", and require them to be followed around with a camera, then I think it is getting pretty sad.

What about cashiers at wall mart or dealers in a casino? They have cameras on them. Many people are monitored at work. Why should police be any different, especially since they're dealing directly with criminals. Are the cameras pointed at the officers? No, they're pointed at the criminals. From a tactical perspective, you can have a control board organizing officers if they were in pursuit of someone. With GPS and cameras, it'd be really efficient. I don't see this as spying on them whatsoever but just another tool to ensure their safety.

moahunter
23-02-2010, 01:26 PM
This has nothing to do with the thought police. It has everything to do with transparency and oversight on the one hand and an effective use of technology as a crime fighting tool on the other.
You see, thats where we likely see things differently. I understand that the police have to make snap judgements all the time. Sometimes, those judgements will look really horirble to a namby pamby liberal senator. They may even be mistakes (people make mistakes all the time). But, I want them to keep geting involved and making those judgements, not standing back and being afraid to do anything to make society better, because somebody might consider their actions in the heat of the moment to not be politically correct, or similar. I think the answer is to train police really well, then trust them to do their jobs. The bad apples will get weeded out over time, just like with anything.

I find it very interesting that many of the same people who hate the idea of public cameras that film everyone equally (criminals and police), are the same people who love the idea of cameras on police. It doesn't surprise me really, so many people in our society have this mind set that the police / establishment are bad / out to get them. It is depressing that extends all the way up to these Liberal Senators.

MrOilers
23-02-2010, 01:35 PM
I did not read anywhere that a qualified candidate who isn't a female or a member of a minority will be turned down.

Agreed.

But, IF in the process of trying to "diversify", if one single qualified person gets turned down because they are not a member of some chosen minority (which happens in may instances), then that idea should be abolished.

I don't want to see discrimination (of any type) in our public services.

grish
23-02-2010, 02:08 PM
Sometimes, those judgements will look really horirble to a namby pamby liberal senator.
And herein lies the real issue. It has nothing to do with the cameras. It has to do with who made the proposal. What exactly is a "namby pamby"? Just because one belongs to the Liberal party does not make that person evil just like not all conservative or NDP or Green or Communist party members are aoutimatically evil.

The video, together with all other evidence such as statements, forensics, etc will be looked at by the same bodies who currently have access to such evidence. Law enforecement, prosecution and defence, etc as well as the body that oversees the police. There is no way a bunch of Liberal Senators will gather around a TV and watch the latest footage.

moahunter
23-02-2010, 02:10 PM
The video, together with all other evidence such as statements, forensics, etc will be looked at by the same bodies who currently have access to such evidence. Law enforecement, prosecution and defence, etc as well as the body that oversees the police.
Wouldn't that time and effort to try and second guess what was right, and what was wrong (as if anyone ever could) be better spent on better police training, and more police on the streets? I think it would, we don't need one person at the video monitor for every officer, or even for every 100 officers, for that is 1% less police doing real policing.

grish
23-02-2010, 02:14 PM
Wouldn't that time and effort to try and second guess what was right, and what was wrong (as if anyone ever could) be better spent on better police training, and more police on the streets? I think it would.

No it would not. It is a part of the process in a fair justice system. We expect all evidence and all actions by law enforcement to be as fair as possible so that no one is falsely convicted and no one's rights are undermined. We also need to protect our law enforcement members from frivolous lawsuits.

The point is not that we need to arrest a person when a crime took place. The point is that we need to arrest the person who actually did it, and have sufficient evidence to present before the judge so that an appropriate punishment is imposed.

Komrade
23-02-2010, 02:50 PM
But, I want them to keep geting involved and making those judgements, not standing back and being afraid to do anything to make society better, because somebody might consider their actions in the heat of the moment to not be politically correct, or similar.

So moanhunter you figure by the cops being watched they will be less likely to act on issues? To do their job? Why is that?
Im not scared to do my job while being supervised doing it if I am doing my job properly and by the rules.

I would be scared to do my job and be supervised if I wasnt acting properly.

Bottom line is you have a problem with police being monitored for their actions, which is silly when every point in this thread has actually shown that this would improve police actions and relations.

moahunter
23-02-2010, 02:56 PM
So moanhunter you figure by the cops being watched they will be less likely to act on issues? To do their job? Why is that?
Because it is a job that involves a lot of judgment in a given situation. A couple of simple examples:

- a drunk outside a shop is verbally abusing customers, yelling and screaming. Police officer normally grabs them, pulls them aside, and tells them to smarten up. Problem solved. Or is it? With a video, it is probably unwaranted physical violence that deserves a human rights tribunal if the drunk isn't white.

- a police officer finds some kids drinking booze. Police officer threatens to call their parents, and simply empties booze out and tells them to smarten up. True story, happened to me when I was 15. Would it have been better if I had been arrested, with all the paperwork and similar, that would have been required? I don't think so (but then, I wouldn't).

I want police to exercise judgement, not hold back for someone to check the relevant human rights legislation every time they consider doing something (and there is a lot of complex legislation that no police officer can memorize all of). The law is not perfect, and policing is not either. IMO officers need to be well trained and tested to apply judgement correctly, and then trusted to use that training appropriately. The last thing we need is lawyers demanding vidoes, then hyper analyzing every action in a court room with a view to proving some technicailty wan't applied correctly, too many people get off on these as it is.

Marcel Petrin
23-02-2010, 05:01 PM
Police officer normally grabs them, pulls them aside, and tells them to smarten up. Problem solved.

A police officer physically "grabbing" someone and "pulling" them aside when they have not committed a crime nor were they being placed under arrest would indeed be misconduct, and should be considered as such. The appropriate response would be to ask the person politely to step aside and discuss the issue with them, and if they are uncooperative they would be informed they are being placed under arrest for public intoxication. There's no excuse for police running around "grabbing" people, that's the exact type of behavior that leads to people disrespecting police officers.


- a police officer finds some kids drinking booze. Police officer threatens to call their parents, and simply empties booze out and tells them to smarten up. True story, happened to me when I was 15. Would it have been better if I had been arrested, with all the paperwork and similar, that would have been required? I don't think so (but then, I wouldn't).What does that even have to do with cameras?

Titanium48
24-02-2010, 07:04 PM
^ Agreed. Physical force should not be used on non-violent troublemakers unless and until they fail to respond to verbal reasoning. I also don't see how a camera would dissuade a cop coming upon the scene of a minor violation from exercising appropriate discretion. Most of the time the teenage partiers who have their alcohol dumped and are told to be on their way will follow orders and the incident will be over. Occasionally some might fabricate a story about police misconduct, or occasionally one of the bush partiers might later become violent and people might wonder why the cop didn't arrest them. In either case, a tape showing the officer acting in a professional manner and the partiers being cooperative and following instructions would validate the officer's judgement.

Like the Globe article says, "The hope of the move would be to help police gather evidence, while insulating them against allegations of wrongful arrest. The videocameras would also document any police missteps."

On the other hand, I find the suggestion that "bonuses for senior RCMP commanders be contingent on who they hire, so as to meet "higher diversity targets within their area of command." " very disturbing. Any police force needs to hire new officers based on their physical and especially psychological suitability for the job. Any other hiring criteria will prevent us from hiring the best officers we can.