Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rindan t1_j3r2xbu wrote

Reply to comment by Financial-Second-539 in Quite a turnout at the anti police brutality rally in honor of Sayed Faisel. The crowd demands accountability from the CPD for the shooting. There is currently a city council meeting happening where people from the rally and the community are expected to speak. by Harmony_w

Let's see the police cam footage then. That should clear everything up.

Oh right, there is none.

The problem is a complete and total lack of police accountability. They might have been in the right, but we will never know because the police's absolute number one job above all else, is to protect the police. That's why we don't have footage of this shooting despite the fact that there isn't a single good reason for that.

6

Effective_Golf_3311 t1_j3s2wbx wrote

The problem is actually your politicians who banned the technology which means the police wouldn’t be able to wear them if they wanted to.

Whoops.

9

Rindan t1_j3sue75 wrote

"My politicians" have never once proposed, much less enacted a ban on police cameras. If a politicians, who I sure as shit didn't vote for, voted to ban police cameras, I will bet my absolute bottom dollar that it was done to appease the police union.

The police union and their political control over local governments is the beginning and end of 95% of policing problems.

And to be crystal clear, there is no law against police cameras. There is an ordinance that doesn't explicitly carve out an exception like it did for dashcams, but again, that exception was explicitly not carved out at the behest of cops.

There is basically no group of any serious size that is against putting cameras on cops, except for cops, and politicians that have been corrupted by cops. The only two serious groups in the world against putting cameras on police are corrupt cops and corrupt politicians. Unfortunately, corrupt cops and their corrupt politicians do in fact have a lot of power.

Hopefully this man's death will lead to policy change, one corpse at a time.

−2

Effective_Golf_3311 t1_j3t4s32 wrote

>In 2018 and after two years of discussion, Cambridge passed a comprehensive Surveillance Technology Ordinance that at the time was one of the “most collaborative and progressive in the nation and the first of its kind on the East Coast.”

>The goal of the ordinance was to ensure city government doesn’t engage in unwarranted surveillance, said then-Councilor Craig Kelley.

>More: ACLU calls Cambridge’s new surveillance ordinance a ‘victory’

>While police cruiser dashboard cameras are exempt under the ordinance, body worn cameras are not.

Rough.

5