> Why don't you see how the lawsuit plays out?

Because these lawsuits all play out the same. The city pays out, the cop is maybe fired and they go get a job in the next city over as a cop.

> What do you think it should be?

At a minimum every cop involved should lose the right or ability to be a cop anywhere.

> I think on net cops are good. We grant them power and put in reasonable guards for them to not abuse that power.

I think cops are necessary, I wouldn't call them good. I don't think we have reasonable guards because cops abuse their power all the time and face few consequences. More than a few cops have gotten away with murder.

> And when they do there are remedies, like this guy is pursuing.

The remedy is that the city pays, not the cops. That's not accountability. The city doesn't even have to fire the cop, just pay out.

A lawsuit does not solve a systemic problem. This is not a "a few people abuse a tool" situation.

People suck. The tool shouldn't exist.

I genuinely do not understand the boot-licking. Bizarre. It show's a complete and utter lack of foresight.

Who pays for the lawsuit? When do cops actually have skin in the game?

Qualified immunity is a joke. They have absolute immunity with the exception of when it is too politically hot and the cops were stupid enough to leave a trail that worked to convict them.

Policing in America is effectively a state-sanctioned mob. I get the need for the law to have teeth in its enforcement, but when the law doesn't apply to those that enforce it then the system is inherently broken.

Until this current regime, my assumption was a simple hierarchy of oversight up to the federal level but the current regime itself has no oversight and is absolutely fine with the system as it is.

You are one of those people who will never learn unless this abuse happens to you.

An out of county police officer, in general, can't conduct a traffic stop? There's a few exceptions but none of those seem to apply?

It doesn't hold up? What the implication, then? That the recording was illegal and the post-arrest investigation yielded the wrong result?

> Yeah dog, "just didn't sit right" doesn't really hold up.

Can you cite the law that requires more than “it doesn’t sit right” to record police officers in public?

He didn't foia anything. The article is about discovery in a lawsuit.

What dog? There was no dog involved in the article or preceding conments. You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension and/or are suffering from some kind of delusion.

To quote your other post... where you wrote: "Its a camera bro"

Why citizens cannot record cops?