Jesse Brown, City-County Councilor Joins!

Nigel (0:00)

My name is Nigel, good to be back. Hammer, right over there with a very special guest on the hotline.

Jason Hammer (0:05)

You can't say we're not fair and balanced, you rotten sons of you-know-whats, because joining us now from your City-County Council, Councilor Jesse Brown. How are you, sir?

Nigel (0:17)

I'm doing well. You know, France is on fire. You've got a socialist on Hammer and Nigel, cats and dogs living together, not the fairies.

Jason Hammer (0:23)

That's right.

The real reality, brother, is we could probably spend three hours bitching and moaning about different things here. But there are two things I want to talk about with you, because I know you got a big meeting tonight at the City-County Council, the budget and flock cameras. So let's start with flock cameras. It's one of those hot topics that if you bring up everybody in my YouTube chat will start fighting. People will start yelling at me because I think they have some good. What is your plan to roll out with flock cameras tonight?

Nigel (0:59)

Here, why do you ask? I agree it is controversial in terms of some of the specifics, but I'm trying to focus on what I think everybody can agree on, which is the consent of the governed is important. And whenever the government is going to surveil us, we should at least know when and where they're doing that and under what context, right? So what we're trying to do first is start with flock, really look at all the surveillance tech and just get some explanation from the police department, from other organizations using this kind of spy gear, and just let them explain why do they think they need it, how is it going to be helpful for constituents, and then let constituents weigh in and have a public hearing on whether or not we accept this technology. So personally, I'm on the block block, cut down all the camera poles, never surveil me, stay off my property, which is unusual for socialists maybe, but I don't trust the government like that.

But I understand that not everybody feels that way, and people have some concerns understandably about taking police tools away when we need them to be fighting crime. So we're starting by just trying to evaluate what do they have right now, what's out there, under what circumstances do they use it, and how can we trust that it's being used appropriately. Just a side note here, and we can get back to flock cameras, but something hit me when you were talking about surveillance. I mean, you do like the idea, Jesse, of body cameras on police officers, right?

I mean, yes and no.

I think that both the police and the kind of protesters who wanted body cameras had good intentions. But I think you could look at the situation with Dallas Jet, where police body cams were, in my opinion, manipulated a little bit when released to the family. Other cameras from nearby neighbors show that things are a lot different than the police originally said. And the police have eventually changed their story. But I think that camera evidence is only as useful as the public's ability to access it. And so if the police are the only ones who get to look at the footage, then they'll release body cam footage when and if they think it helps them. And that's not an anti-police statement. That's just human nature. You're not gonna make yourself look bad in the edited video you release, right? So I think cameras are useful, but you can tell why using all sorts of true statements, and you can show a misleading chain of events using frames from video if you don't have it in full context, right?

Jason Hammer (3:19)

Right. And I think guys like you and I, Jesse, we are on the same page, but we're on a different page, right? I'm somebody that feels like the flock cameras can be an asset. If I had a missing child somewhere, I would want technology to be able to find my child or somebody that's been human trafficked or a murderer that got away. But at the same time, I've made this clear. You can't have officers abusing the system. There really has to be a penalty for violating the public trust. Does that make sense?

Nigel (3:52)

I agree with that. I would say, you know, I think a position in between yours and mine, or maybe this is closer to yours, but I've seen other people say is there's versions of the technology that are made by flocks competitors that require like a decrypt code from a judge. Basically, if you have a warrant, you can still get access very quickly, see what you need, but you do have to consult with a judge first. You know, it's the modern time, so that doesn't mean an in-person visit where he's wearing a robe. It could be a phone call, it could be a quick text message, but you've got to get the judicial branch of government involved. I think that would be a middle ground. I'd still say no, personally. I'd rather have the liberty than the security, but my personal opinion is not what matters. It's my constituents anyway, right?