On page on of this thread, I wrote:dicion wrote:Can we send this judge a gift basket or something?Judge Emory A. Pitt Jr. wrote: "Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. 'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."
This Statement is just pure excellence. I'm glad that there are still some Judges out there that understand this!
Apparently, the judge agrees with me.The Annoyed Man wrote:Why on earth should there be a law against recording the actions of people on my payroll, doing what I pay them to do? That's just wrong.
I understand that there may be some LEOs that don't like it, but then those that don't probably don't like dash-cams either. The way I see it, a citizen recording of a police action can have exactly the same effect as a dash-cam in that it can be either supportive or damning, depending on the legitimacy of the LEO's actions in question. If a cop is doing a good job, and doing everything right, then the camera will protect him/her when the person being investigated starts shouting accusations of racism, or police brutality, or whatever. OTH, if a cop has something to hide, then the camera will help to make sure that he/she finds employment in some other venue more congenial to their lack of integrity. Cops are as human as the rest of us, but their job requires a high standard of integrity, and the consequences of its lack - both to themselves, other officers, and citizens - can be potentially devastating. Cameras help ensure accountability.