F4GIB wrote:
Police officers have no moral obligation to do anything to clean up their profession. It's OK to stand by (as the second officer did in Missouri) and let an unsuitable thug (pardon, "officer") abuse citizens verbally and physically. A police officer's duty to support the blue line completely surpasses all else.
that's actually not true. there exists many an internal affairs department whose sole job is to police the police and weed out "dirty cops." i dont think most cops are inherently JBT's (jack booted thugs) and out to do anything wrong to anyone. i think offiers by and large do have a moral obligation to filter the dirty cops out of their ranks because who'd want to work alongside anyone who had questionable moral character, regardless of what job you did?
i disagree that your average officer will blindly support "the thin blue line" above all else. while that may have been very true in the 70's, nowadays, with in-car video/audio, GPS, and other technology, there's alot of evidence out there that would clearly show someone isn't telling the truth and covering up for another officer.
it's bad enough an officer does something bad. it is even worse if another officer has to lie for that officer and is subsequently proven to be lying through audio, video, etc. i know it still happens on occasion, but due to the fact that officers know there's alot of other evidence out there, they are nowadays less inclined to lie.
you can maybe get away with turning off your in-car video in your patrol car, but can you control the surveillance cameras in say, the hotel parking lot or wherever you stopped this citizen? video cameras are out there everywhere because they are inexpensive nowadays. most cops and citizens have no idea where these cameras are, and they have virtually no way of seeing what footage is on them, or not.
