Good for you.
Apparently you do not understand the hard-drive/wireless unit in the trunk situation where the police officer is not able to know if it is working or not.
He trusts the display in the window unit but that doesn't mean the wireless signal is functioning (transmitting data back to the main drive) and/or the units hard drive is still recording and not crashed and giving a false signal.
Computers never crash. . .ever.
Point is, you demand firings/suspensions if the unit stops recording and make no allowance for a malfunctioning system. Unit breaks, fire him.
I visited a PD and examined the units and their recording devices and found out how it works, played with the switches. Interesting. You pay taxes so you have a right to see what your tax dollars are buying. I was curious so I went there one day and wanted to see. . .and they were happy to show off the system. You are saying the police officer must have the ability to know at all times if the unit in the trunk—the recording/transmitting unit—is functioning. The thing breaks, too bad, you are fired. . .even though he has no indication of failure.
Have a nice day. Buh-bye.
” Apparently you do not understand the hard-drive/wireless unit in the trunk situation where the police officer is not able to know if it is working or not.
He trusts the display in the window unit but that doesn’t mean the wireless signal is functioning (transmitting data back to the main drive) and/or the units hard drive is still recording and not crashed and giving a false signal.
Computers never crash. . .ever.
Point is, you demand firings/suspensions if the unit stops recording and make no allowance for a malfunctioning system. Unit breaks, fire him.”
That issue is not nonexistent. But make no mistake, the technology is not nearly as fragile as cops would like to claim. And it is mighty convenient that when a cop gets accused, his device fails.
LE has to deal with the sabotage issues like in this article. At least if they want any credibility for their failure claims.