Poll (on another site) about police actions

[PrinceofWands]

Obviously there's a lot of back and forth right now over various movements and the police response to them. There's also arguments about recording the police coming up in courts across America right now. I'm curious how AT feels about the following two ideas for laws/policies completely removed from the political agendas that spawn their need:

1. Should it be law that any public employee has no 'right to privacy' when operating in a public capacity?

2. Should it be law that police be prohibited from any form of assault (including striking, chemical agents, tasers, etc) except in response to imminent, direct violence?

Since polling here on AT is somewhat limited (and because I'm polling on numerous sites) I've created the poll here:

http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/541888

Feel free to debate or suggest poll alterations in this thread.

 

[Zebo]

1. Yes it's bullshit CYA to hide increasing police state from public
2. No, no cop is going to move me if I don't want to be moved and sometimes arrest is warranted. Only way to do it on a unwilling suspect is to force compliance. Whether physical, chemical or electrical to make sustaining suspects uncooperative stance untenable.

Edit. I read first question wrong, corrected.

 

[BurnItDwn]

1.) They should have an internal affairs team that handles tapes of what the cops do. The public at large should be pree to record the cops as well when they are on duty, in public.

2.) striking, chemical agents, etc may be necessary to avoid injury and to subdue suspects.


They need freedom of action, but they also need to not abuse their power.

 

[fskimospy]

1.) Public officials, acting in public, and performing their public duties should have no expectation of privacy.

2.) There are a number of things that would be referred to as violence that may in fact be required to enforce compliance, so no I would not agree. I would be in favor of much greater oversight of police use of force. It should be the last resort.

 

[airdata]

1.) Public officials, acting in public, and performing their public duties should have no expectation of privacy.

2.) There are a number of things that would be referred to as violence that may in fact be required to enforce compliance, so no I would not agree. I would be in favor of much greater oversight of police use of force. It should be the last resort.

^

Police should have no problem being video taped. If they're doing something that they don't want to be caught on video, they shouldn't be police officers.

 

[woolfe9999]

1. Yes. Police are not only public servants but generally perform their duties in public places where privacy is not guaranteed for anyone. People are recorded every day as we go about our lives and police should not receive special consideration.

2. It depends. Sometimes police are going too far but other times people deserve what they get. The rules just need slight tweaking to be right.

Pretty good poll questions capturing fairly complicated opinions BTW.

 

[Fern]

Agree with previous posters. (I.e., free to tape public servants in public, and some force may be necessary even without overt direct violence against police first.)

Fern

 

[HumblePie]

1) Already ruled that public officials doing a public duty in public have no right to privacy. And in fact should be scrutinized. This has many precedents. The current state laws popping up recently will all be struck down soon as the SCOTUS reviews them.

2) Force is sometimes required. I don't begrudge that. Monitoring, training, and oversight prevent necessary force from being abuse.

 

[airdata]

*waits for people to come in and pretend police have the right to privately commit crimes and avoid punishment if there's no video taped evidence*

 

[PrinceofWands]

1. Yes it's bullshit CYA to hide increasing police state from public
2. No, no cop is going to move me if I don't want to be moved and sometimes arrest is warranted. Only way to do it on a unwilling suspect is to force compliance. Whether physical, chemical or electrical to make sustaining suspects uncooperative stance untenable.

Edit. I read first question wrong, corrected.

If you read the poll option on the second it notes that 'hands-on' necessity during an actual arrest for a crime would not be affected. Only using force for compliance, but not arrest.

For instance, most of the people maced or otherwise assaulted during these protests are not subsequently arrested or even cited for anything.