Comments on Police Department Pulls Personal Cameras After Guild Objections

"O’Neil said that 'a Segway couldn’t get you disciplined.' "

More hard work from Seattle's finest; CYA is what they do best.

I don't like police misconduct any more than the next person, but the SPOG is a union. It's like whenever we talk about the cops all of a sudden Seattle forgets what a union is and what it does.

Imagine you were writing a story about SEIU or the Teamsters objecting to bosses monitoring employees with personal wearable cameras. Imagine you were reading that story. Then where would your sympathies lie?

(OK, I do like police misconduct a teeny, tiny bit more than the next person provided there is a good comedy angle. But still.)

Cops are against anything that makes them do their job, which if I am not mistaken, to protect and serve.

Why give cameras to cops when they can just take them from bystanders?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004003761_photographer09m.html

Oh, whoops. New departmental policy. No more taking cameras.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/365706_police04.html

Just break them next time. Or just say that they are obstructing your police work. Then it's ok. And we can save taxpayer dollars while still respecting the guild contract.

Raise your hand if you want to wear a camera at work, regardless of what you do for a living.

@6. raise your hand if you are responsible for justice on a street level. i'll reply with a guild-worthy statement:

“a software developer couldn’t get you falsely arrested.”

Tell you what: if my job ever involves meting out imprisonment and death, you can put a camera on me to monitor what I'm doing.

So then, the issue is privacy? Don't most SPD already have dashboard cams in their patrol vehicles? If so, then one would think wearing personal cams (pointed away from the officer it should be noted) would be considered a logical extension of this, and therefore fall under the pretext of a previously-negotiated working condition.

Granted, car-cams aren't nearly as portable as a personal cam, so I suppose that might constitute enough of a difference to warrant the need to bargain. But again, it's not like there isn't already a precedent set in the existing contract for monitoring officers' activities.