Effective July 1

[Ronald_55]

1 hour ago, Chucktshoes said:

I’m just saying, if you put a camera on me, nudity will be involved.

I am guessing you are banned from kid's birthday parties....

[Chucktshoes]

14 minutes ago, Ronald_55 said:

I am guessing you are banned from kid's birthday parties....

At least 100 yards. 

[enfield]

On 6/20/2019 at 9:07 AM, E4 No More said:

IIRC, THP has tractor/trailer rigs that they use to look down into cars to see if the driver is texting. If they would go to that extreme for texting then what makes you think they can't enforce hands free which is much more visible?

But they can't do this on 2 lane roads.

[DaveTN]

22 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

My take on them is if you can’t trust me to get your freight from point a to be safely without your eye in the sky watching me, you don’t need me to be hauling for you. My company tested them and determined that they were a greater liability than potential benefit. Anyone who wants to put a camera on me can pound sand. 

Dang Chuck we agree on something!!

Because that is exactly my take on cameras on cops. If you can’t trust your cops to tell what happened; you can’t trust them to testify in court; and you should fire them. You of course would need something called evidence to do that. Cops should tell them to go pound sand.

I’m not big on ripping on entire groups of people because of the bad acts of a few. When I was young, truck drivers were some on the best drivers on the road; today many of them are the worst. They kill a lot of innocent people. But I’m still not wanting to mandate putting cameras on them.

[E4 No More]

14 minutes ago, enfield said:

But they can't do this on 2 lane roads.

You think that a cop can't see you holding a cell phone to your head when you pass them or when they come up behind you? If I was so inclined I could have written a crap-ton of no seat-belt tickets, and that's a lot harder to see.

[E4 No More]

6 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Dang Chuck we agree on something!!

Because that is exactly my take on cameras on cops. If you can’t trust your cops to tell what happened; you can’t trust them to testify in court; and you should fire them. You of course would need something called evidence to do that. Cops should tell them to go pound sand.

I’m not big on ripping on entire groups of people because of the bad acts of a few. When I was young, truck drivers were some on the best drivers on the road; today many of them are the worst. They kill a lot of innocent people. But I’m still not wanting to mandate putting cameras on them.

I felt the same way when I first heard about them, but when I was pursuing a job at Taser selling the cameras I was shocked at how often the police were cleared from false claims. That resonated with me since the only time that I was sued as a cop was when the suspect fabricated a claim that I body-slammed him on the ground. If I had the camera that lie would never made it past my Chief.

[Chucktshoes]

4 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Dang Chuck we agree on something!!

Because that is exactly my take on cameras on cops. If you can’t trust your cops to tell what happened; you can’t trust them to testify in court; and you should fire them. You of course would need something called evidence to do that. Cops should tell them to go pound sand.

I’m not big on ripping on entire groups of people because of the bad acts of a few. When I was young, truck drivers were some on the best drivers on the road; today many of them are the worst. They kill a lot of innocent people. But I’m still not wanting to mandate putting cameras on them.

Any company I work for has the prerogative to request a cab facing camera, I can choose to comply or quit. I’m not too far from you in that if the cops don’t want to wear bodycams they absolutely should quit. As their employer (at least they claim to work fork for the people, I have doubts about that), I want them to wear them because no, I don’t trust them to be honest. If they don’t like it, I don’t care. Just like the companies that require cab cameras don’t really care if I like it or not. We both have choices to make and both have to live with the consequences. 

 

Out of curiosity, what do you think about the departments that have added officers to lists of non-trusted for warrants and affidavits because of their social media posts documented by the Plain View Project? 

[DaveTN]

13 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

Out of curiosity, what do you think about the departments that have added officers to lists of non-trusted for warrants and affidavits because of their social media posts documented by the Plain View Project? 

Police Departments should, and do, have control over what their Officers say and do in public. If a Police Officer is making controversial statements on Facebook; they are probably too stupid to be a cop. However, that should be discovered in the pre-employment interview process.

If I were a Chief of Police I would end the Social Media issue in one day.

The Police Department I was on had a Citizens Complaint system in place that worked. If a cop does or says something wrong on social media; report them. Many people that make complaints against cops are good people doing what they think is right. But many are simply cop haters that will lie and do anything they have to, to get a cop in trouble. It’s not hard for the Command Officers to tell the difference.

I don’t know how a Police Department could justify having a “list” of Officers that are not “trusted”. I see that there are DA’s that have such lists. Most of those DA’s are simply playing politics and not worthy of the position they have. However, Officers that are wrongly accused have recourse; the same as anyone else. Officers can sue those that lie about them or DA’s that put them on “lists”.

I don’t know why anyone that is young, educated and has a clean record would want to be a cop nowadays. But as fewer want the job; the worse it will get.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying cops don’t have to be held to a high standard; they do. But when accusations are made; they need to be dealt with properly. Citizens need to step up and support their Police Officers when they are in the right.

But Chuck you and I have had this discussion many times. We will never agree on this.

[Wheelgunner]

I'm unimpressed.  The General Assembly gets to say they made the world a safer place, the government gets a new revenue source, and there's a new basis for traffic stops.  

A generation from now, people won't manually drive cars anymore; they will be self-driving.  In other words, in fairly short order the whole issue of distracted drivers will be passe (texting, drunk, fatigued, etc.). Hope the DUI lawyers have a new career planned out...

[gregintenn]

19 hours ago, E4 No More said:

You think that a cop can't see you holding a cell phone to your head when you pass them or when they come up behind you? If I was so inclined I could have written a crap-ton of no seat-belt tickets, and that's a lot harder to see.

Not when the majority of them are also driving around with one in their hand as well.

[DaveTN]

45 minutes ago, Wheelgunner said:

I'm unimpressed.  The General Assembly gets to say they made the world a safer place, the government gets a new revenue source, and there's a new basis for traffic stops.  

Correct. Some people are a little slow and they need a law passed to let them know they are doing something that is getting people killed. Those people will quit their bad behavior because it’s illegal while others will continue their bad behavior, because its all about them and they simply don’t care.

I live in an area where myself and my family is more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a bad driver than by a “real” criminal. So these laws kinda make sense to me and should be explained to young folks about why they are in place instead of whining about them. But that’s just me based on what I have seen.

45 minutes ago, Wheelgunner said:

A generation from now, people won't manually drive cars anymore; they will be self-driving.  In other words, in fairly short order the whole issue of distracted drivers will be passe (texting, drunk, fatigued, etc.). Hope the DUI lawyers have a new career planned out...

Then it will be a good thing that these laws will be a non-issue; correct?

[DaveTN]

30 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

Not when the majority of them are also driving around with one in their hand as well.

They also get to do other things you don't get to do. Like, turn on the overheads, hit the siren, run red lights, speed, and quickly get to traffic accidents in an attempt to save anyone that may have lived through the initial impact when of these distracted drivers hits someone.

It is my understanding many first responders are updated while responding via a phone. It’s unfortunate if that’s all their departments can afford. Some could just be violating the law; that should be dealt with.

[Chucktshoes]

6 hours ago, DaveTN said:

But Chuck you and I have had this discussion many times. We will never agree on this.

Very true, but it’s fun to rehash now and then for our audience.

[E4 No More]

On 6/22/2019 at 8:43 AM, gregintenn said:

Not when the majority of them are also driving around with one in their hand as well.

They drive around without their seat belt on too, and that doesn't stop them from writing tickets for it.

[Capbyrd]

43 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

They drive around without their seat belt on too, and that doesn't stop them from writing tickets for it.

Well they are better than us mere citizens.   

[Miltech]

Some LE departments have policies requiring seat belt use and include this in training. This is true for local SO. I believe I am alive today due to belt use in a dept vehicle. State law does not override common sense.

[gregintenn]

21 hours ago, Miltech said:

Some LE departments have policies requiring seat belt use and include this in training. This is true for local SO. I believe I am alive today due to belt use in a dept vehicle. State law does not override common sense.

I am alive today because I chose to NOT wear a seatbelt.

[Grayfox54]

I was surprised to see that deaths caused by distracted drivers are approaching that caused by drunk drivers. I’m not sure how they know that;

Its become common practice for officers at an accident scene to check the time stamp of a driver's last phone call. Its amazing how often that time stamp matches the time of the accident. 

Personally, I like the new law. I can't even guess how many times my faster reflexes have saved me from an accident with some idiot on their phone. Happens far too often around Memphis.  Pisses me off royally. 

This will be like the seat belt laws. Mostly ignored, but every once in a while the cops will crack down and write a whole bunch of tickets for a couple of weeks. Just a reminder to drivers that this is the law and to generate a little extra revenue. 

[DaveTN]

6 hours ago, Grayfox54 said:

Its become common practice for officers at an accident scene to check the time stamp of a driver's last phone call. Its amazing how often that time stamp matches the time of the accident. 

Well they won’t be getting that info from most peoples phones. So its common for them to contact the carrier who just gives them that info?

[Oh Shoot]

2 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Well they won’t be getting that info from most peoples phones. So its common for them to contact the carrier who just gives them that info?

Why not? You mean, because they need a warrant or something, which I doubt? Don't most all phones show list of calls/texts and times? Even my 10 buck flip phone does.

- OS

Edited June 26, 2019 by Oh Shoot

[Grayfox54]

All you have to do is push the right buttons to bring up the call history. Only takes a few seconds. You were just in a wreck. You may be injured or at the very least shaken up. How you gonna stop them? And from what I understand, its completely legal for them to do that as part of the investigation. Can you site any law that says they can't? I'd like to see it. 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Grayfox54

[Capbyrd]

8 minutes ago, Grayfox54 said:

All you have to do is push the right buttons to bring up the call history. Only takes a few seconds. You were just in a wreck. You may be injured or at the very least shaken up. How you gonna stop them? And from what I understand, its completely legal for them to do that as part of the investigation. Can you site any law that says they can't? I'd like to see it. 

That's gonna be tough.   First off, it takes me seconds to delete my call log.   Secondly, the first thing most people do after a crash is call someone.   So how is the cop going to separate what happened before the crash and after?   I can easily see this being worthless in court.  

[Chucktshoes]

3 hours ago, Grayfox54 said:

All you have to do is push the right buttons to bring up the call history. Only takes a few seconds. You were just in a wreck. You may be injured or at the very least shaken up. How you gonna stop them? And from what I understand, its completely legal for them to do that as part of the investigation. Can you site any law that says they can't? I'd like to see it. 

They can’t access my phone without a passcode, as is common these days. I don’t have biometric unlocking turned on, so no fingerprints or face scans. When they pick up my phone, this is what they will see. 

[Capbyrd]

Just now, Chucktshoes said:

They can’t access my phone without a passcode, as is common these days. I don’t have biometric unlocking turned on, so no fingerprints or face scans. When they pick up my phone, this is what they will see. 

I don't use a passcode.    I'm too lazy.   

[E4 No More]

5 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

Why not? You mean, because they need a warrant or something, which I doubt? Don't most all phones show list of calls/texts and times? Even my 10 buck flip phone does.

- OS

You have a Jitterbug!!??