zlacker

Denver also, as of last year, encrypts its police channels, which makes any sort of outsider oversight impossible.

>>ericwo+(OP)
This is a Good Thing. Remember the Boston bomber?

I don't have a solution, but making all police communications public in real-time only puts innocent people at risk.

>>junon+oc1
Removing yet another avenue for police accountability & transparency also puts innocent people at risk.

>>semico+rN1
In isolated incidents, perhaps. As a general rule, no. Police officers are not evil and crooked as a general rule - only the paranoid or willfully ignorant believe that.

>>junon+en5
Police officers organizations are, as a general rule, very strongly actively supported by police officers, and police officers organizations, as a rule, strongly defend officers involved (demonstrably so, not merely accused) in corrupt and abusive acts, not just in terms of assuring adequate legal and administrative representation, but as far as publicly slandering individuals and organizations calling for the general principal of accountability and advancing specific well-founded complaints.

Police officers, therefore, are generally complicit, and actively rather than merely passively so, in perpetuating and advancing the culture of unaccountability that fosters abuse and enables those officers who are direct abusers.

Most officers may not be direct abusers but that's not the only way to actively participate in promoting abuse.

>>dragon+Fo5
> police officers organizations, as a rule, strongly defend officers involved (demonstrably so, not merely accused) in corrupt and abusive acts

Got a source? I've worked with/dated/am related to quite a few LEOs in various parts of the country. This has never been true in my experiences. That's hardly a "rule".