Yeah, I agree Roorda is a dipshit. But he wasn't elected to be the public face of the STLPD. The media is making him out to be just because he's a dipshit and it'll provide a more sensational story.
He's the head of the St. Louis Police Officers’ Association, which means his job is to be the representative for what's best for the police officers, not what's best for the Police Department. That's a big difference. I'm sure the Police Department would love for him to sit down and STFU. I’m sure they would also like for an actual spokesperson for the Police Department to be more heard. I honestly don’t know if this is the PD’s fault that their own message isn’t being heard, or a case of the media hearing it and saying, “Well that was boring. Let’s go see if we can get a good soundbite off Roorda!”
And even with being a union rep, I think he does a shitty job. For example, I think dash-cams and body-cams would end up helping police officers do their job more than hurt them. We could talk about whether or not the PD can afford them or not, but regardless I think they'd be a good idea. But in Roorda's eyes, he cares more about the police officers themselves than how well the job they do gets done. Fair enough, that's his job, and a worker’s concerns should be taken into consideration when making a decision. Any union rep is more concerned about the workers than the how good the quality of the work is that they do. And there’s valid concerns for an officer’s privacy that need to be worked out, like calling your wife, dancing and singing to shitty pop songs while driving, taking a dump, talking to yourself, bitching about work-related things with co-workers, etc. As I sit here on Reddit typing this, I know I would have some concerns if there was a camera recording everything the entire time I’m at work. The union should have some input on when or if it’s ok to turn the camera off. A lot of times the union will take a more extreme position than they actually want to push the starting point for negotiations closer to what they actually want. Maybe that’s what he’s doing, or maybe he’s just not considering how many times this might prove the officer's side of things and the union rep wouldn't even need to be involved.
And yes, his job is to support the officer, and that means to support Darren Wilson. But it’s also his job to explain the officer’s position in a professional manner. Wearing that bracelet is a dick move. Use facts regarding why you feel Darren Wilson reasonably feared for his life. Do not attempt to do the same thing with a sloganeering little trinket on your wrist that the people you are trying to convince are going to find inflammatory. Not only does that accomplish nothing, it just makes the situation worse.
Having said all that, I really don't think he assaulted this lady in the middle of a video-taped meeting at city hall. I think obviously the meeting got out of control, he was getting crowded in, and people were getting in his face. This setting was the time to have a serious conversation with both sides representing their views and not have a huge blowout confrontation. Save the screaming, yelling, and name calling for the street protests, and use the time at city hall to articulate your views. But could he have handled it better by not becoming part of the problem? Of course, but it's Roorda, and he's a dipshit. Does it warrant assault charges? I really doubt it.