OHP to Okla. women; Want to avoid getting raped by the police? Don't break the law.

[BBatesokc]

All I can say is that I have been in a number of meetings with the man and he has struck me as genuinely concerned about the issues that a few people here have suggested he is UNconcerned with. I'll leave it at that.

Obviously your perspective is valid within the scope of its foundation - his public face at public meetings.

I'd argue to the contrary that he is an unprofessional man who forwards his own agenda when the public isn't watching.
Brown vs. Oklahoma gives an Oklahoma judge's perspective of him. An interesting twist is that records indicate that racial slurs were used while violating the citizen's rights (the victims were black). Records also indicate that there were depositions and transcripts that provide all the details of Citty's rights violations and possible racist attitude. However (and conveniently), if you request those records, they will tell you the record files have disappeared. I know, its been requested.

Chief Citty is also a hypocrite and is not blind when it comes to justice. He covered up his own step-daughter's crimes of possession of a fake ID and obstruction. She sent a text to her friend that their upscale home was getting ready to be raided by police with a search warrant after Chief Citty told his daughter about it. Citty has had other officers fired and criminally prosecuted and convicted for the exact same thing. His daughter's actions not only obstructed justice but also placed the officers in unnecessary danger by tipping the alleged offenders off. His daughter was never charged with anything.

Last year Chief Citty told a local high profile non-profit that if I was allowed to attend their fundraising banquet or if I was acknowledged in any way that he nor OCPD would participate in their event. This, even though we were both in attendance the year before without issue and I provided thousands of dollars in donors that were personal friends. What did Chief Citty provide? He and his entourage attended (for free), insisted on their own reserved private table (paid for by a close friend of mine at my request) and they provided a single auction item (ride in Air1).

Chief Citty has insisted on GPS for OCPD patrol cars but regularly avoids the installation of dash cams because that footage he knew would eventually be deemed a public record. Though he is all for GPS on patrol cars and the recording of record searches by individual officers - because those items are not public record and he can use them to target officers that cause problems for the department - like whistle blowers.

This thread isn't about Chief Citty, but I felt the need to throw in my two-cents. I literally have dozens of specific examples of how corrupt and unprofessional Citty is. I receive correspondence from police officers on a somewhat regular basis and he is not well-liked within the department by patrol officers - at least based on my perspective.

[TheTravellers]

That changes in a few weeks.

Good! Should never been allowed to be non-public.

[bluedogok]

Besides if the cop really wants to pull someone over they will. No matter how well you are driving. Dash cams NOW!

If they are anything like the Austin PD dash cameras they always seem to "fail" at the most inopportune times or all action happens just outside of camera view. It's amazing how easily video of critical incidents just happens to "disappear" off the devices.

[RadicalModerate]

I really have no love whatsoever for the ACLU . . . still, if you read the editorial commentary in this week's Gazette and then do a little browsing on the topic it suggests, I think that any reasonable person's level of concern about police excesses might be increased.

Particularly interesting is the little Video Game-based study on the nearly irresistible urge to abuse authority if the opportunity is provided. (it's all about Civic Asset Forfeiture as compared to Criminal Asset Forfeiture. in other words, "stop and rob" on the highway.)

[bombermwc]

If they are anything like the Austin PD dash cameras they always seem to "fail" at the most inopportune times or all action happens just outside of camera view. It's amazing how easily video of critical incidents just happens to "disappear" off the devices.

Well with a dash cam, there are some inherit problems. One being, all you have to do is go out of view of the camera and you're able to do whatever you want without a record. Not every officer does this, but it seems to be the case when some bad crap goes down (funny that). The worn cameras will alleviate that. The ability of the officer to turn the camera off is another problem. If they choose to have a private conversation in the patrol car (which why shouldn't they expect to do this), then there's no reason that should be recorded. There is such thing as an officer's right to privacy...they didn't lose it just because they are driving a patrol car that day. But there's the sticker....how do you balance the two? Do you tie it to the lights so if they have them on, it records (and continues to record for X minutes after they are shut off...in case they try to turn them off to avoid capturing something). Do they get any indicator that it is recording? I'm not going to pretend to have the answers, but just pointing out this it's a bit more complex than just turning it on and leaving it running all day without any questions.

[ylouder]

Bomber - about the officers right to privacy?

I get your general post but I wonder why the deserve a right that none of us are afforded. By that I mean almost all employees are monitored through emails, phone calls, cameras hidden or not and it's completely legal because they are on company/ government time. In alot of cases people are getting in trouble and now responsible for their actions outside of work too.

So why should an officer be afforded the right to privacy while performing their tax payer paid duties when the rest of us arent?

I don't understand the reasoning of assuming all police officers have some sort of executive privilege when you can look at any single month period and find numerous instances of rape, murder, drugs, and corruption.

My general thoughts are let's make it easier for good cops to excel through the ranks by removing the dead and toxic wood we all know is present.

[Urbanized]

You guys really think it's OK or appropriate to record and monitor all conversations in the car that aren't explicitly a part of a call or a suspect interaction/transport? I don't think that's right for any employee/employer relationship, public servant or not. Fair enough (actually an excellent idea) to have the dash cam recording all stops, and I'm very OK with the idea of body cams recording subject interactions. I also think recording audio in the car when suspects are in back seat is fine (actually a good idea considering the subject of this thread). But recording water cooler talk, personal phone calls and drive-thru orders? That's taking it too far.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yes, I do think it is more than appropriate to record every conversation in the car that is funded by tax payers.

[Urbanized]

You think the same is true of all government employees? The Mayor's office? HR director at the City? Garbage collectors? Taxpayer funding is what qualifies a place for 24/7 sound recording? What about university research labs? They're publicly funded. The teacher's lounge at the high school? The Thunder locker room?

[Plutonic Panda]

You think the same is true of all government employees? The Mayor's office? HR director at the City? Garbage collectors? Taxpayer funding is what qualifies a place for 24/7 sound recording? What about university research labs? They're publicly funded. The teacher's lounge at the high school? The Thunder locker room?

The police are a completely different ballgame in my opinion. They have more authority to alter people's free will than other government officials and that should come with a price of them sacrificing their privacy when they're wearing a badge. Every police officer should be monitored when patrolling. Body cams and dash cams with no off switch recording at all times.

When my driving record gets cleaned up, in the distant future, I've thought about entering law enforcement. Seeing as I plan to be a good officer, I would NOT have a problem with me being monitored while on duty. If I planned on raping women, then yeah, I wouldn't want dash cams that I couldn't turn off.

[RadicalModerate]

I know that, at this point in time, this is Olde NewZ . . . yet, somehow it points up the spread of Law Enforcement Scofflawism spreading like Ebola . . . (for lack of a better alarming simile):

Spec.Ref/to wit/ad infinitum, etc.
Florida town infamous for speed traps disbanding police force - CBS News

I can't be certain, yet I would wager that the victims of The Great Disbanding (in [where's] Waldo) will join together in a class-action lawsuit and ask for disability, due to crapal tunnel syndrome, (yes: crapal tunnel) on account of having to write so many tickets. I hope they know Saul Goodman's or Jackie Chiles' phone number.

[RadicalModerate]

The police are a completely different ballgame in my opinion. They have more authority to alter people's free will than other government officials and that should come with a price of them sacrificing their privacy when they're wearing a badge. Every police officer should be monitored when patrolling. Body cams and dash cams with no off switch recording at all times.

When my driving record gets cleaned up, in the distant future, I've thought about entering law enforcement. Seeing as I plan to be a good officer, I would NOT have a problem with me being monitored while on duty. If I planned on raping women, then yeah, I wouldn't want dash cams that I couldn't turn off.

Put the cam in the badge.
btw: "altering" "free will" is sort of impossible.
yet don't take that as an affront to your primary point.
(or do, it's a free country and you have a choice. =)

[RadicalModerate]

Canadian County has some heavy duty hardware. Accoding to KOCO. I hope they actually follow the directions painted on the side of the Assault Vehicle loaded with M-16s : "To Protect Your Constitutional Rights"

I'm fairly sure they will on account of The Local Sheriff was wearing a tasteful blue plaid shirt, a spiffy cowboy hat and a badge. Plus he--and his Armory--were on camera. And he spoke with sincere authority. On camera.

Plus, "To Protect and Serve" is so . . . LA Blasé . . . ain't it?
Nothing at all like the photo I had tacked to my wall, when I was a kid, to express and remind me of my outrage at Law Enforcement Faux Pas when I was a Neo-NewLefter . .


For the sake of Clarification (and communication) that was a shot of some of the Local Police accused of killing those Civil Rights Workers down in Mississippi way back when. The only flak I ever caught about the picture was from a University of Colorado Biology Student (from up around Nowata, OK) when my mom invited him to dinner on account of she felt sorry for him. He got all up in my face about "those are MY people" "why are you making fun of them?" I had nothing to say, in reply, at that moment. I saved it until now. =)

[Mel]

You think the same is true of all government employees? The Mayor's office? HR director at the City? Garbage collectors? Taxpayer funding is what qualifies a place for 24/7 sound recording? What about university research labs? They're publicly funded. The teacher's lounge at the high school? The Thunder locker room?

No. Just the ones with the guns that can do whatever they want to you and their union has bottomless pockets for lawyers.