Someone just called ME a police apologist, because I was trying to stress that the cops would have to be a part of any serious attempt to reform the police. My thought is the convening of a kind of permanent grand jury, which could consist of cops, attorneys, and average citizens to review and pass judgement on the recordings of police interactions with citizens. To take care of complaints, basically. My notion is that the police departments themselves would not have access to these recordings. Theyd belong to the courts. And if theres a problem, a grand jury could be convened and they could look over the recordings. Ordinary citizens, because they usually get hosed out of these things, and theyre the ones most affected, attorneys, because they know the law and can explain how the law pertains, and cops, because they know what its like to be trained to be able to kill someone in a split second. They understand what its like to be in that position. I at no point said that they should be in charge of this, but that was this guys immediate line of attack. I probably shouldnt have said, when he wanted to freeze the cops out, that he was just as bad. Pissed him off. I was thinking about trying to freeze citizens out of the process, but of course that wasnt the way he took it. So after about ten minutes of me trying to explain my position, this one guy, whod been having an entirely different discussion simply involving the disposition of the recordings, said we were making up a conflict out of nothing. I wasnt making up shit, given that I was simply trying to explain my concept. He was the one getting all huffy about how cops were murderous bastards and they shouldnt have any say in shit. Me, a police apologist. Thats funny as hell.
Posted on: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 06:45:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015