TexasCHLforum.com

RogueUSMC wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:Once again, cameras would have resolved this issue quickly.... And protected those officers that didn't do anything wrong.

Make it available were the officer so choose to take advantage of the cover yourself benefit....but to require it would be an invasion of another sort...

Invasion of what? I understand in a private workplace, but when your job is to protect and serve the public, your actions should be a matter of public record. Additionally, I frame it as something that benefits good officers.. I simply can't think of a valid reason not to have cameras.

At a minimum, lights on, camera active.. That might resolve your privacy concern, but it's a public duty and public job. We're owed transparency.

Once again, cameras would have resolved this issue quickly.... And protected those officers that didn't do anything wrong.

Keith B wrote:This is not going to end well for the officer or the city. I smell a good case law suit coming up.

Based on the facts we have now, what does she sue for? The PD removing her personal property w/o cause? What's that actually worth? You'll come out of pocket on that attorney.

Look at it from the other way. Had the PD not disarmed her and she shot someone later because she was emotional and aggravated, what's that worth?


I agree with you - no cause that I see to take the weapon away... However, I don't think this is going to be a high value civil case.