Assaulted a guy for daring to stand on his 4th Amendment rights?
Resigned rather than be fired, and is facing two charges. For some reason neither of them is assault, and there's nothing about the violation of civil rights, though.
And what about the other deputy? The one who stood there and watched and did or said nothing, and didn't report this? He gets off free, it appears.
Now the whining and justification starts:
Asked if he would have handled the matter the same way again, Glans
said he would, but not if he knew it was being filmed. He acknowledged
that he did not know the incident was being videotaped.
“I was concerned. It was a public safety issue,” the sergeant said.
“If I had to do it all over again … I’d probably do the same thing. If I
knew the camera was there, no, because it does look bad.”
Think about that. "Yes, I'd commit assault and make threats and violate his rights again, long as I knew it wasn't on camera." And he thinks this is a "I'm a caring law officer" defense? And this asshole was a SUPERVISOR?
Makes you wonder who all else he's done this to over time, and gotten away with it.
Cameras. On every officer. And recordings MUST be made available, and it's a firing offense for your camera to be turned off or become 'inoperable' during an incident.
2 comments:
The only issue I have with the "fired if your camera turns off or is 'inoperable' during an incident" stance is that I've seen fights and such that banged gear up pretty good, to say nothing of the people involved.
And cams fritz fairly regularly, too--a CA department was testing body cameras and had something like 25% of them fail in the first month, and didn't know it til they went to pull recordings.
Not foul play, just the cameras weren't recording properly.
At very least, I'd add something about legitimate exigencies and technical problems.
But so long as the disciplinary action extends to any intentional disabling of the recording by the officer, I can get behind body cams.
And this is coming from someone who started towards being a peace officer in the recent past.
I'm in favor of cameras, because more often they actually help the officer in complaints, the evidence value, etc.
Damaged in a fight, no problem; "Sergeant, beats me, must've gotten unhooked somehow just before that stop where I was accused of assaulting that guy" is "Well, does the word 'suspension' mean anything to you? Or 'firing'?"
From what I've read departments that start using them have a BIG drop in complaints. Use them.
Post a Comment