I'm thinking they should be careful what they ask for.
You want corporate protections? You should also be subject to corporate liabilities.
I'm thinking they should be careful what they ask for.
You want corporate protections? You should also be subject to corporate liabilities.
"For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night."
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy --
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. But coming from that region of the country it doesn't surprise me.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
Nuts is all I can say.
Most public record laws I'm aware of have exceptions for specific techniques and officer safety information. There should be no problem releasing basic info on the number of calls, types of charges filed, etc.. That's just public accountability. In certain cases, I would have a big problem releasing complete AARs without redacting specific techniques. Under LA law, that was never a problem.
If the issue is protection of sensitive information, then work to change the law. Public safety agencies pretending to be something else certainly isn't the answer.
Ken
It appears to be an interesting concept -- the Department "leasing" personnel and equipment to the 501(c)((3)) non profit.
Kevin S. Boland
Director of R&D
Law Tactical LLC
www.lawtactical.com
kevin@lawtactical.com
407-451-4544
What authority does a private corporation have to enforce law? Can members of these corporate SWATs be prosecuted for assault and murder? The world wonders.
I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.