BWCs are now being used for nitpicking… and discipline - Page 2
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49
 
  1. #11
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    I agreed thery are a great Advantage however I can see D4 Todd A. And Howard W using to burn people when they can not go after them face to face.
    Honest question-how would they be able to use it against someone who's followed SOP?

  2. #12
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Honest question-how would they be able to use it against someone who's followed SOP?
    I can give you at least 20 examples where following SOP to the letter is impossible. Its lose lose. They got us one way or another.

    Do you want a basic example? Bicycles on a side walk is 100% illegal. Yet we see children riding to school. Would you prefer them along the road?

  3. #13
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    I can give you at least 20 examples where following SOP to the letter is impossible. Its lose lose. They got us one way or another.

    Do you want a basic example? Bicycles on a side walk is 100% illegal. Yet we see children riding to school. Would you prefer them along the road?

    I am talking about an instance in which a deputy follows SOP-that can't be denied or twisted by anyone on either side-because it's on a camera.

  4. #14
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    I agreed thery are a great Advantage however I can see D4 Todd A. And Howard W using to burn people when they can not go after them face to face.
    Yeah and SN does that bs too along with other shady stuff. Not all but a lot of the D4 B shift supervisors are sooo terrible. The bad ones definitely need to go. #maked4greatagain

  5. #15
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    The most prominent case so far of “nitpicking” (as you call it) is a deputy moves evidence on a scene. Deputy claims they moved the evidence because their supervisor told them to. Review the video, that instruction never happened. If you will lie about that, what else do you lie about to cover your mistakes? That’s not nitpicking, that’s an integrity issue and should be addressed.

    There’s more, shall I continue?

    How about a major felony crime where a deputy writes that a particular person in said investigation made certain statements. Deputy writes these statements in their interview portion of the report and also referenced the same statements in their investigation text. Review the video which was on for the full duration of said deputy’s involvement on scene, and those statements were never made. These were multiple sentences of made up statements by the deputy, not the mixing of a word or two as you are implying.

    There’s more, shall I continue?

    Deputy responds to a warrant service and meets with a family member who owns the residence. Family member tells deputy that the wanted subject does live there, but had left an hour prior and should be back sometime later in the evening. Family member provides the vehicle the subject was driving and who it was registered to for the deputy to easily verify the tag and info provided. What does the deputy do? Updated the warrant service attempt to state the wanted subject doesn’t live there per family members and doesn’t make any note about the vehicle he was driving for future intel purposes or to track the subject later. I presume this was to ensure said deputy didn’t have to respond back out to check the warrant. Again, intentional bold-faced lies by a deputy for whatever reason.

    Would you agree these are integrity issues and not simply nitpicking the shade of color of a shirt? These are Brady issues, especially the previous example I provided with a deputy saying an individual said something that they didn’t say. One would think with a camera on your chest rolling for the duration of your call that you wouldn’t lie in your reports any longer.

    There’s more examples if you’d like to hear them. Again, major issues for a case and not just nitpicking an exchanged word or the color of a shirt. Maybe you should review your video when writing a report about a major case, or maybe at a minimum just don’t lie, exaggerate, or make stuff up.

    Really? That's all you got? That's like saying BWC are here to prevent deputies from shoplifting on duty. C'mon......

    The examples you gave have NOTHING to do with nitpicking. It's amazing how you are pre-programmed to argue with me, while you agree with my points. Your examples above are exactly what BWCs should be used to prevent. But BWCs should not be used to nitpick anything in the OP, like the color of a shirt (even you mentioned how ridiculous this is) or anything similar. So stop agreeing with me, in an argumentative tone.

  6. #16
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    I can give you at least 20 examples where following SOP to the letter is impossible. Its lose lose. They got us one way or another.

    Do you want a basic example? Bicycles on a side walk is 100% illegal. Yet we see children riding to school. Would you prefer them along the road?

    There will never be a good answer for you. You refuse to look at it from an advantageous position. Just think about those last two words of the second sentence.

  7. #17
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Honest question-how would they be able to use it against someone who's followed SOP?
    Obviously you've never work for Todd nor Howard. Bonus about the camera.... those two should not be going near any investigations in fear what they say or make their troops do outside of Florida state statute.

  8. #18
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Really? That's all you got? That's like saying BWC are here to prevent deputies from shoplifting on duty. C'mon......

    The examples you gave have NOTHING to do with nitpicking. It's amazing how you are pre-programmed to argue with me, while you agree with my points. Your examples above are exactly what BWCs should be used to prevent. But BWCs should not be used to nitpick anything in the OP, like the color of a shirt (even you mentioned how ridiculous this is) or anything similar. So stop agreeing with me, in an argumentative tone.
    Exactly they are pre-programmed to argue when we're right. good job for pointing that out. but guess what I guarantee you if A. Collins lied on camera I bet you that film would disappear just like the rest of the Chad crew.

  9. #19
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Exactly they are pre-programmed to argue when we're right. good job for pointing that out. but guess what I guarantee you if A. Collins lied on camera I bet you that film would disappear just like the rest of the Chad crew.
    Non issue since no one with real rank is wearing them. How many lies do they tell in a single day? God forbid we had access to all their pot stirring.

  10. #20
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    I can give you at least 20 examples where following SOP to the letter is impossible. Its lose lose. They got us one way or another.

    Do you want a basic example? Bicycles on a side walk is 100% illegal. Yet we see children riding to school. Would you prefer them along the road?
    Would you tell elementary kids to use the bike lane? After all it is illegal for bikes on a side walk. Or how about golf carts on the roads in old folks communities? All illegal. You CA NOT do this job by the letter of the law or SOP.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •