Cops’ Right to Privately Beat Suspects Shall Not Be Infringed

New York Times columnist David Brooks came out in a recent column as a strident proponent of privacy. Not for you and me, mind you, but for policemen whose right to privately beat people will be infringed upon by body cameras.

9 Comments. Leave new

  • So great! In a time when citizens have less privacy than ever and the authorities more power than ever, apparently authorities need more privacy and power. Well, I suppose the cops can take down all the traffic cameras. They don’t want to give the impression they don’t trust us!

  • One astute observer/commentator expressed the idea that cameras can be manipulated or made to “malfunction.” Perhaps a better solution would be to psychoanalyze applicants for police work to cull out the thugs/psychos. (?)

  • Stop kidding yourself: the police were created to control working class and poor people … with oppression and violence.

  • alex_the_tired
    April 17, 2015 8:05 PM

    The camera thing is an easy fix.

    Defense attorney: “Officer Wiggum, where’s the video footage from your camera?”
    Wiggum: “The camera, uh, malfuctioned. There was no footage.”
    Judge: “Officer. You’re saying, under oath, that you have no footage?”
    Wiggum (snickering): “Yup.”
    Judge: “Then you have no evidence. Case dismissed.” (Gavel bangs.)

    As for David Brooks. A smart honest cop who wants to see the system change would target Brooks for some off-the-camera harassment. Twist Brooks’ arm behind his back until it dislocates and explain it away as “resisting arrest.” (The Police Union will back him.)

    That’s how the honest cops will get things changed. By demonstrating to the douchebags exactly how corrupt the system is.

    • A firsthand taste seems poetically justified.

      • alex_the_tired
        April 19, 2015 10:08 PM

        Not just poetic, but essential. The system cannot change until those who control it and those who praise it discover that it can actually turn on them.

        One of my neighborhood’s residents owns a pitbull. It has attacked and killed two neighborhood dogs (both much smaller than it). The neighbor still insists that the dog isn’t dangerous.

        When it finally attacks him, he will grasp the point that the dog was dangerous. He might still preface with “I just can’t believe it” but he will conclude with “the dog is dangerous.”

        It’s a matter of odds and time. Eventually, the wrong cop will go after the right person. Some superbillionaire’s snotty daughter will get assaulted at a roadside cop-stop and the cop will deny everything and get away with it. Or some New York Time’s reporter’s kid will get shot in the face by a cop for “resisting arrest” and linger for a couple of days as a vegetable before finally succumbing to the injuries.

        And then, suddently, it will “become” an issue.

        I just hope we’re all here for it when that day arrives.

  • «Not for you and me, mind you, but for policemen whose right to privately beat people will be infringed upon by body cameras.» Now, Ted, if I’ve told you once I’ve told you a million times, don’t exaggerate ! I’m certain that Mr Brooks is an advocate of privacy not only for cops, but for people in the higher echelons of the US federal , state, and local governments and, in general people who look more or less like him and have incomes similar to or higher than the one he enjoys.Such people have earned their privacy ; others not….


    • Why does this make me think of Senator Feinstein? Let me think: Oh, yeah! The CIA’s spying activities were a-okay up until that point when they targeted her committee. Do I remember this correctly?

      • You do, indeed – which I know, as your memory, mein verehrter Lehrer, tallies with my own, which renders it infallible…. 😉


You must be logged in to post a comment.