That makes sense.
Not surprised there. They don't give Marines a break either. The city outside of Camp Lejuene, Jacksonville, are all pretty much former Marines. The Jacksonville Police Department's best clients are Marines. We always keep them busy.
A few years ago I was driving through Fort Benning Military Reservation on US 280 in Georgia. I was speeding when I was stopped by Military Police.
I readily admitted that I was speeding, but as my excuse I said that being from Canada I was not used to driving on such excellent roads and I got carried away.
He smiled and let me go with a warning.
Yeah, but, in the absence of consent, I don't think the police should have a right to seize or destroy 'evidence'.
I guess if someone sees that a police officer is truly out of control while arresting someone, they should be videoed and it should be given to the courts. So many video's get taken now that police officers are afraid to do their job for fear of losing it. Sometimes their job means they have to use a little more force than Joe Public might think is necessary and then there is a big un-necessary investigation that tarnishes the cops image. And - puts his/her name in the news and their posting. I well know those dangers and my husband was a cop during much "quieter" times then we see now. I don't believe there was ever a time that he needed to draw his firearm. Like all things, video's can be a good thing but I would think in a job like being a peace office, they are a lot more hassle than they are of value. As far as a privacy issue goes, who really needs to know a peace officer's identity besides the person they are dealing with. I avoided using the words victim or criminal because they don't always apply.
That's why, imo, you should be allowed to videotape officers, BUT, you shouldn't be allowed to publish those videos. You should have to make a copy available to the court system, and be permitted to keep a copy for yourself.
The police force here has officers working undercover vice squad by night, and writing tickets by day. Their face being published puts them at serious risk. But then, I've never understood how such a small city can risk their cops doing that in the first place, vids or no.
How does someone give a video to the courts? Doesn't it have to go through
the Police (or a lawyer...which may be beyond the means of a witness) where
it might be lost or misplaced, or deemed never to have existed in the first place.
If an officer isn't doing anything wrong, then the releasing of a video (or picture)
taken in a public place (where the expectation of privacy is nullified) should be
a non-issue. Releasing it publicly (via the Internet) costs nothing (unlike a Lawyer)
and ensures that the video doesn't disappear or get permanently misplaced.