The question wasn't in ignorance and looking for solution. The question was to get people to realize a point. Lack of its presence on the public site does not prove it is lacking. Lacking a bodycam would make it's own point of slack security.
K, but if you did the research and found out the k9 group for that department uses body cams on their k9s, why not include that information within the “discussion” part of your original remark?
Because I didn't do that. I assumed that he would have a bodycam and extrapolated with the caveat that if he wasn't wearing one, that too, would be suspect.
One doesn't HAVE to have devil's details to get to the endpoint, it just confirms.
Either way presents an issue. Are we disagreeing on something? Am I obliged to find the details that don't exist yet? My 'asking' instead of 'telling' creates interest and motivation rather than opposition. Still happens tho, even with good questions.
Exactly. Thanks for discussing.
....and my guess is you won't be viewing that video, at least anytime soon.
It wasn’t a discussion. I told you how to get an answer to your question.
The question wasn't in ignorance and looking for solution. The question was to get people to realize a point. Lack of its presence on the public site does not prove it is lacking. Lacking a bodycam would make it's own point of slack security.
K, but if you did the research and found out the k9 group for that department uses body cams on their k9s, why not include that information within the “discussion” part of your original remark?
Because I didn't do that. I assumed that he would have a bodycam and extrapolated with the caveat that if he wasn't wearing one, that too, would be suspect. One doesn't HAVE to have devil's details to get to the endpoint, it just confirms. Either way presents an issue. Are we disagreeing on something? Am I obliged to find the details that don't exist yet? My 'asking' instead of 'telling' creates interest and motivation rather than opposition. Still happens tho, even with good questions.