Why The $100 Million Police Body Camera Experiment 'Isn't Working' (fastcompany.com) 309
Slashdot reader tedlistens writes: Without cellphone video, George Floyd's death might have been what the Minneapolis police initially described in a statement as simply a "medical incident during a police interaction." Fortunately, the officers were also filming the entire encounter on their body cameras, the result of a previous round of reforms aimed at reducing force and enhancing transparency. And yet, the public still hasn't seen those videos: Like many states, Minnesota gives police wide discretion about when and how to release the footage, if at all.
It's a pattern repeated at police departments across the country, and it adds to a growing chorus of questions about the actual impact of police video.
"We spent a king's ransom on body cameras in this country, for accountability," says Barry Friedman, a professor at New York University School of Law, and director of the Policing Project. But research shows that the cameras aren't having their intended effects. And the devices raise other concerns about police reforms: Policies and laws keep videos from the public and allows cops to manipulate what gets captured on camera, while new technologies like live-streaming and face recognition are turning cameras into powerful street-level surveillance tools.
It's a pattern repeated at police departments across the country, and it adds to a growing chorus of questions about the actual impact of police video.
"We spent a king's ransom on body cameras in this country, for accountability," says Barry Friedman, a professor at New York University School of Law, and director of the Policing Project. But research shows that the cameras aren't having their intended effects. And the devices raise other concerns about police reforms: Policies and laws keep videos from the public and allows cops to manipulate what gets captured on camera, while new technologies like live-streaming and face recognition are turning cameras into powerful street-level surveillance tools.
Police Cameras DO work (Score:5, Insightful)
They do work and should be *required* to be worn and turned on by all uniformed police who are on duty because they do work. They work for two very obvious reasons.
1. It remove speculation about who said and did what when, protecting everybody involved, the police, the public, everybody. IF you know you are being recorded, it tends to make you think twice about what you say and do. This is true for the police, who know they are being monitored and could be having to explain their actions should a complaint or noteable event take place. This is true for the public, to a lesser degree, that they understand that the camera won't lie, that they cannot stretch the truth about what the officer did or didn't do.. "He called me ... (insert racial tinged name)" when he didn't..
2. It records both a visual and audio record of events to sort out the legal questions that naturally arise at times. It makes it much more difficult for police to skirt the law, claim things like self defense and makes complaints about the police easier to sort out. Did the officer rough up that citizen for no reason? It's all there on tape, from start to finish, from at least one perspective.
This is not to say that the cameras don't have a down side, what they capture can be misleading and open to interpretation, some of the details may not get recorded because cameras have their limits. They may not capture everything necessary to make a proper determination in some situations. But as a viable technology that has appeared to help both the police and the citizens they deal with on a daily basis they are very helpful and should be mandatory for all uniformed officers who are on duty and dealing with the public.
Re:Police Cameras DO work (Score:5, Interesting)
>"what they capture can be misleading and open to interpretation, some of the details may not get recorded because cameras have their limits. They may not capture everything necessary to make a proper determination in some situations. "
Couldn't agree with that more. It is very important objective evidence, but it doesn't tell the viewer everything about the situation. I have seen lots of videos which make something innocent look very bad, or something bad look very innocent... revealed only later after a full investigation.
Overall, I think it can do a lot more good than bad, as long as the privacy of citizens can be assured and people understand that there is always a presumption of innocence for all parties, and it is only a single piece of a puzzle.
An advantage to the limited perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
It does show the situation from one perspective, one angle, and in a way that's a good thing.
We expect officers to act appropriately based on what they see. If a cop can see something that can't be seen by a bystander viewing the situation from a different angle, we expect the cop to respond to what he sees - not what she thinks someone else can see.
If the cop can see a kid is in harms way, they should act appropriately to that. If a cop sees what looks, from their perspective, like a gun is being pointed at them, again they should act on that. It's right and fair that we judge a person's actions based on what they can see and not on what they can't see. So that's an advantage of being able to see more or less what the cop saw, and judge their actions based on what the situation was from the angle they saw.
Re: (Score:2)
>"We expect officers to act appropriately based on what they see."
Agreed. But it isn't, however, just what they see. It is also what they know from what they are told by people reporting it, what they hear from dispatch, what they saw from running the rap sheet as to the person's previous crimes and propensities, what interactions they have have previously had with the individual, etc. That does have a significant bearing on the perceived threat level and actions they need to or might need to take (or
Re: (Score:2)
> That doesn't excuse bad policing.
Right, we're not trying to excuse bad policing, we're trying to fix it - to have good policing.
> . It is also what they know from what they are told by people reporting it, what they hear from dispatch, what they saw from running the rap sheet as to the person's previous crimes and propensities
While you have a valid point, I think in most cases of concern the officer doesn't know who it is, and therefore have the ability to know about priors, until the suspect is alr
Re: (Score:2)
>"While you have a valid point, I think in most cases of concern the officer doesn't know who it is, and therefore have the ability to know about priors, until the suspect is already subdued."
Agreed, yet again. It just goes to show there is a lot of complexity in these issues.
>"The glaring exception to that is of course traffic stops if and when they call in the plate and get a timely response"
Or when they are questioning someone and have already run their rap sheet... In the recent example of the A
Re: (Score:2)
''what they capture can be misleading and open to interpretation''
That's why we have the court system, to interpret actions and apply the law.
The US taxpayer spent most likely cumulative billions of dollars for a battery powered 20 dollar webcam and secure infrastructure to support it for law enforcement. The fact that public servants and the department that supports them has the ability to control availability of the work product we pay for, is ridiculous. And.. before anyone waives the privacy flag, you h
Re: (Score:2)
IF you know you are being recorded, it tends to make you think twice about what you say and do.
Most times this is true, but there are cases when cops knowingly commit felonies (repeatedly) while their bodycams were on. Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
ONLY IF the video is accessible (Score:2)
The whole point here is that this audiovisual record cannot serve the public interest if police can choose to edit or withhold it when it incriminates them. Without a way to gain reliable access to the recording, then there can be no accountability, and you're right back to square one - might as well not bother.
You wouldn't allow the defendant to edit the only evidence against them - why would give police that power when they're the ones being charged?
Re:Police Cameras DO work (Score:5, Interesting)
See this case:
https://www.nydailynews.com/ne... [nydailynews.com]
This guy was beaten by cops, and one kept yelling "quit reaching for my gun". It was a setup - the guy wasn't reaching for the cop's gun but the cop was playing it for the camera. Fortunately, there was a second camera he didn't know about that captured what was happening.
The victim was about to be prosecuted when the prosecutor came across a second dash cam video that showed what actually happened. Being a rare honest prosecutor, he dropped charges against the victim and charged the dirty cops.
Had the second video not surfaced, the victim would be in prison now.
Cameras are great, but not perfect. This is why *all* video needs to be reviewed in cases like this.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't allow them to be turned off (Score:5, Insightful)
Bodycams should be engineered/manufactured in a way so that when a cop clocks on duty, it automatically turns on and it won't turn off until he's off shift. There's no button for him to disable it. He's also required to regularly charge the device while he's in his vehicle so that he can't claim that it's out of battery. Better yet, they all come with multiple batteries that can be charged separately and a beep sounds one hour before running out of battery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't allow them to be turned off (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, if they can turn them off they'll plant evidence [npr.org], then turn on the body cam and mysteriously 'find' it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's more of an argument of "X happened hundreds of times and nothing happened because it was the word of the police versus the word of witnesses". The difference this time is having video available, and a lot of people stuck at home not too busy to look at the videos. So the "all Y's are bad" is really a "I told you a lot of Y's were bad and you didn't believe us, now look at this!"
You can't use that word "all" there because it's too easy of an out. It implies that we don't have any outrage until 100% o
need more live PD and limited editing (Score:2)
need more live PD and limited editing
Big Question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
1. Who gets to see the (unedited?) video?
Anyone who lives in the county. They paid for the cameras. They pay the salaries of the people who wear them. They pay the maintenance fees and contract renewals and everything else involved in the existence of the body cams. They get to watch the footage.
2. Why do you want to see the video?
Because. I. Paid. For. It. Whether it's because I am looking for information regarding an 'unfortunate medical incident' of a family member without a bystander taking independent footage, or because I'm a retired person who can't afford cable anymore and s
Two sides of this coin (Score:3)
Body cameras have also been justifying use of force in many cases and you never hear about it. Witness testimony often contradicts what the body camera sees for a variety of reasons including subjectivity, lying, and people having shitty memory. These contradictions seem to be made by the perspective of the subjects in the video setting a context for what is seen by elaborating on what they were doing and how they were perceiving the environment.
For example, Floyd was said to resist arrest, but on camera he bucked a bit while being apprehended and didn't put up a huge fight. This is just my perception watching the video. You can call it resistance, sure, however, had he not died, I'd bet that little resistance he did put up wouldn't have ever come up. Then he collapsed by the patrol car, which I don't really call resisting at face value, but the agency did and, again, if he lived to tell about it, that probably wouldn't have come up as resisting arrest.
Re: (Score:3)
For example, Floyd was said to resist arrest, but on camera he bucked a bit while being apprehended and didn't put up a huge fight.
It's also irrelevant since they had so many cops there. When you've got more than one cop for each limb there's really no justification for brutality of any kind. If they are competent at all, that many cops can trivially cuff and hobble a suspect.
Selection bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they didn't work in the Floyd case.
Yet in Rayshard Brooks' case, they're the key evidence of what happened.
It's almost like we can't make a overly simplistic categorical "they're not working" statement here.
Do we have actual year-on-year data about police confrontations, complaints, and resolutions pre camera and post camera?
Clearly, officers need to have them on their entire shift.
Clearly, they need to be subpoenable.
They're not the end-all solution, but it seems like a couple of small changes would make a big difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Do we have actual year-on-year data about police confrontations, complaints, and resolutions pre camera and post camera?
Yes! Here's one randomized controlled trial: https://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/#hom... [dc.gov]
It's almost like we can't make a overly simplistic categorical "they're not working" statement here.
I think that's entirely correct. There are loads of promising leads about which bodycam policies and protocols will be effective. I was impressed by the data-gathering on this website, https://www.joincampaignzero.o... [joincampaignzero.org], part of a campaign to reduce police violence.
Re: (Score:3)
Small changes aren't enough.
Qualified immunity MUST end.
And we need a lot fewer cops on the street.
Should be unnecessary (Score:3)
If cops had sufficient training (for a longer length of time) rather than Dave Grossman's "killology", and the bar to entry was higher, so any moron couldn't become a cop, the cameras would be unnecessary.
Higher barrier to entry is no problem, we don't need as many police as we have. The assumption that with less police it would be absolute chaos is ridiculous. We don't live in a Hobbsean "state of nature". The vast majority of convictions are drug-related. That can be solved in other ways, that don't involve more police.
But let's face it, no one in a position of power wants to make those changes. The police unions certainly don't. It's a shame because, it would save a lot of money, that could be invested in communities in more productive and helpful ways.
Colorado (Score:5, Informative)
You can't manage what you don't measure. (Score:2)
Or where you aren't allowed to see the measurements.
There should be an elected civilian commission that can view any footage and vote to release it. Any individual commissioner should be able to prevent any individual cop from ever working in the area he represents again.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The police are the ultimate instrument of the government's power over the people. No cop should ever work in a neighborhood if the people
Bad example (Score:2)
There were like five or ten people who saw and filmed George Floyd being killed.
We know at least one of the four cops was worried about Floyd's health, he's heard on tape asking the officer on Floyd's neck about it.
We know the people standing around the scene were worried about Floyd's health, we hear them asking about it on tape.
Question, did anyone filming the death of George Floyd bother calling 911? Presumably another cr
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true, however, what happens when the entire police department pretends what happened was just an unfortunate medical incident, and no one was around to see otherwise? Part of the problem is, from what I understand, footage that would be the only evidence strong enough to bring up charges against an officer are kept in the police department unless charges are actually brought up. So unless there is external footage from a civilian, there's no way to really press charges against a police office, making the body cameras useless for prosecuting them.
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:5, Informative)
You have to ask what would happen if all footage was released to the public, though. People being arrested or questioned become recognizable to an extent they haven't been before. Informants get crosshairs painted on them.
No, public release is not a good idea. Systematic judicial review might be a better option.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to ask what would happen if all footage was released to the public, though. People being arrested or questioned become recognizable to an extent they haven't been before. Informants get crosshairs painted on them.
The trivial solution to this would be that the footage should always be released in cases in which the person in the video has died, in which case the public's right to know outweighs the deceased's right to privacy. (In fact, the Privacy Act is very clear: it doesn't apply to dead people).
In other cases, the video should be released on request of the person in the video.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
True, this case did not go to trial because of the footage on the body cams, it went to trial because of other videos. Two from security footage from stores and one from a bystander. If there had not been other videos it would have been swept under the rug. Even if it was only the security videos that police could have just asked for those as evidence and kept it secret. We've had other cases where there are eye witnesses without video and the police just shrug and claim a different story and no one the D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh you're too funny, pretending FOIA request's are not routinely ignored!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because we don't do as shitty of a job as them and then don't lie about it.
Additionally, we already have a TON of logging of our activities. And that log is not in our control to manipulate. Try to submit code that actively breaks the build and then lie about not submitting or coding it. See how many of your programmer bros stand up for you.
No one cares for a video of a cop sitting at the donut shop for 3 hrs every day (prog messing around). But we certainly want video of them not doing their job right and then not taking ownership of it (submitting bad builds). And said cops shouldn't be vetting what gets reviewed.
Re: I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
I actually think that cops do an excellent job and have an amazing safety record. There are more unarmed people killed by ambulance drivers than police officers each year. That being said, if you want qualified immunity and the ability to use lethal force then I think you need to be recorded. If you do not want to be recorded then either get a different job or give up your gun or your qualified immunity.
Re: I wonder... (Score:3)
Agreed, cops, by my standards, generally do a great job. But as wardens of justice and public trust, they have far higher bars to surpass than the rest of us. And I consider body cams as much of a protection for cops as victims. But cams are a must giving the position they hold in society.
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: I wonder... (Score:3)
Thatâ(TM)s the job. It comes with awesome power. If youâ(TM)re not willing to have the public watch over your shoulder while you exercise that power thatâ(TM)s fine; donâ(TM)t take that job. No one is forcing you to do so. There are plenty of other people who will and plenty of other jobs for people who wonâ(TM)t.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I think my boss would be impressed to see how I handle build errors and like another poster said it doesn't result in death. It doesn't even result in a violation of anyone's civil rights and it's also quickly corrected. I also get along with QA. I can turn something over to them and tell them it works and they should try to prove me wrong. Sometimes they do. Some of my best friends are QA people.
How can you even compare such things to police brutality? I try to avoid brute force tactics in my c
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:3)
Iâ(TM)m not sure you need to find people who havenâ(TM)t seen the video. What you need to find is people who can set aside their feelings about what theyâ(TM)ve seen and keep an open mind during trial and decide the case based only on what is presented at trial.
Re: (Score:3)
Any prosecutor worth a damn will present the video at trial anyway. If not, he's trying to take a dive.
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
...said the guy with enough money to hire a lawyer. Oh, and don't forget that we're talking about corrupt cops. So when you do try to hire a lawyer, you might suddenly have a heart attack at the next traffic stop, too.
You have no idea what a Fascist Is. (Score:3, Insightful)
You stupid cunts wouldn't know what a Fascist is even if they stuffed you into an oven alive.
Seriously, every time you throw that word around to label people with which you politically disagree, you absolutely SHIT on the victims and the soldiers of WWII who fought against Real Fascists.
If Trump was a real Fascist, your sorry ass would be in a fucking camp or you'd be dead in a ditch, you stupid motherfucking cunt.
So just shut your fucking Pie Hole.
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:5, Informative)
Lawsuit. This then provides ability to get a subpoena for the "evidence". That is how it works.
"The camera was broken/The camera battery was flatr/The video was deleted/overwritten".
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
"The camera was broken/The camera battery was flatr/The video was deleted/overwritten".
There are now "secure drive" options for police bodycams that make this excuse obsolete.
The stated opposition to using them is mainly based on cost, including managing the saved footage. It's funny how much cash police departments can find to spend on military hardware at the same time.
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny how much cash police departments can find to spend on military hardware at the same time.
They get that stuff for free, it's all hand-me-downs from the last 20 years of wars and peacekeeping in the middle east. It's why it's easier for a police force to get a dozen humvees for nothing, but your rank and file police still end up buying their own service weapons.
Ever wonder why the narrative changed after police depts started going full-in on them back in '09? Various groups like BLM, various left-wing orgs, and anti-police groups didn't like the result. Since it tends in many cases not to show
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Since it tends in the only cases that police will release not to show the offender being...
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Calling someone an offender before trial is prejudicial. Yes, it results in the sometimes silly-sounding "there's the suspect" when you're watching a video, etc., and can clearly see said person doing an action, but jurisprudence is clear that a legal judgement requires a trial. Once convicted, said individual can be classed as an "offender".
Re: (Score:2)
>"The purpose of the recordings is to be an official record, not to satisfy public curiosity."
Indeed, but it could be more. I can see a possible future where the public could request and get any footage they want after a program automatically removes faces and ID info. Without a court order or lengthy FOIA process. At a bare minimum, it should certainly be available, automatically, to lawyers for discovery.
>"It will be difficult to find jurors who are not prejudiced by what they have seen in the me
Re: (Score:2)
'' I'm not sure you know how discovery works.''
Yea.. that's when the prosecution has the inability or isn't ''aware'' of evidence that may of help to the defence. Or when they plead that they can't afford the expense to produce all the evidence. Or, when they just happen upon necessary evidence and produce it 5 minutes before a hearing so the defense can't properly present it in the case.
That's how discovery really works... right?
Re: (Score:2)
Or is blocked by current law from revealing the evidence. The New York law "50a" was written to protect police officers from abuse of their professional records for other court cases, but was interpreted to prevent access to all body cam footage by defendants. The law was repeasled on June 12, 2020:
https://www.innocenceproject.o... [innocenceproject.org].
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
"Balance"?
The officer kneels on a guy's neck for three minutes after he passes out and stops moving and you're looking for a more "balanced" version of the events...?
Re: (Score:2)
That... (Score:2)
Or, they could, you know, stop murdering black people. Whichever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: That... (Score:3, Informative)
Murdering people. There is no racism problem, there is a police brutality problem. People point to irrelevant population statistics without also taking into account police per sq mi where people live and economic strata. Said police brutality problem is caused by the Drug War, police unions and QI. The most visible of which is QI, but it is not QI which allows a cop with double digits of serious complaints on his record to continue working on the street and not be parked behind a desk. Then you have the Dru
Re: (Score:3)
-A gun problem meaning police officers operate under an assumption a suspect is armed
-A police culture problem where the officers despite knowing the actions were wrong did not intervene
-A racial profiling problem where black men are excessively targeted
-and a Toxic Masculinity problem where men see using excessive force as a manly thing to do
Re: (Score:2)
>"Balance"? The officer kneels on a guy's neck for three minutes after he passes out and stops moving and you're looking for a more "balanced" version of the events...?"
I believe the discussion goes far beyond this once incident. There is no question what the officer did there was abusive, unnecessary, and extreme. But the video, alone, doesn't prove racism, or even [most types of] murder- that requires establishing causal relations and, more importantly, intent.
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
The guy passed out, there was no question as to whether he was subdued or a threat to anyone. What do you think the intent was of staying there for three more minutes?
Re: (Score:3)
So you can think of a dozen valid reasons for kneeling on the neck of an unconscious person? Interesting, I can't think of a single one.
The Minneapolis PD have a long and sordid history of racially-oriented violence. Since they've been REPEATEDLY ordered to clean up their act, including by Federal court IIRC, and have openly refused to do so pretty much the only alternative is a full reboot. What do you expect the elected representatives of the taxpayers to do? Say, "You're naughty boys and this time yo
Re: (Score:2)
Balance is for video games. Trying to balance facts with fiction or knowledge with ignorance is idiocy.
Re: (Score:3)
Justice isn't meant to be easy. We don't give justice when it is easy, and stop doing it when it's hard. We give justice because it is right no matter how difficult it may seem to you. Hiding information is still censorship and you're thereby patronising your people. You don't trust them to make sound judgements, but yet you want them to be your jurors. That's idiocy. You decide to give them only information you deem is right, but thereby do you pass your own judgement and take influence on the jurors. You
Re: (Score:2)
People as individuals are usually quite sane and rational. People as groups are idiots. That's why it isn't given out in mass, as it just goes into the idiot box with people not understanding nuance.
The whole idea of the court room is to get the jury to understand nuance and context behind any evidence. Not go rampaging around yelling this or that because they've just seen a fragment that "confirms" their incorrect biases.
Re: (Score:2)
People as groups are idiots.
No. If we start to believe this then what are you doing here, on the Internet, with everyone else? You'd be part of a group of people and your statement is that of an idiot. And you know that cannot be right.
Re: (Score:2)
No. If we start to believe this...
Start to believe??
"A camel is a horse designed by committee." "None of us is as stupid as all of us." These aphorisms have been around for a very long time, and they're more apt today than ever.
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:2)
A camel is a pretty good replacement for a horse for pretty mch any task, so... where's the problem?
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not just public curiosity. I can point to any number of cases where the police claimed they were right, and when body cam video was publicly released against the wishes of the department (sometimes up to a year later) charges are suddenly dropped against the victim and filed against dirty cops who had supposedly been "investigated" and "cleared".
It's not "curiosity" - it's accountability.
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
Chauvin's actions would not have even been noticed without that bystander's video. The official record showed nothing to suggest police wrongdoing, the department did their best to sweep it under the rug, so without that there'd have been no credible grounds for a subpoena to access the bodycam files.
Police need broad latitude to do their job, but accordingly they absolutely must be accountable for their actions, and giving them sole discretion over the only reliable record of those actions defeats the entire point. If police have physical control of these bodycams then there has to be mandated independent review on demand, with a solid way to verify the integrity of the record and no presumption of innocence if this is violated.
Re: (Score:2)
Police need broad latitude to do their job, but accordingly they absolutely must be accountable for their actions, and giving them sole discretion over the only reliable record of those actions defeats the entire point.
This.
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
If police have physical control of these bodycams then there has to be mandated independent review on demand, with a solid way to verify the integrity of the record and no presumption of innocence if this is violated.
There also needs to be mandated independent review without demand. 100% of the audio should be scanned by software tools which do voice stress analysis, gunshot detection, etc. Then any parts of the video which seem "interesting" should be processed at least by software, with the high points (again, e.g. gunshots) also always viewed by humans. And any gaps in the record should be grounds for review of the officer's conduct, including interviews of people in the vicinity at the time at which the camera was disabled.
Frankly though, the cops should a) not be allowed to disable the cameras, and b) should not have access to the video on the cameras. Only the independent oversight organization should have access to the video without subpoena. That way the cops aren't able to use the video footage as an aid to creation of their story.
Re: Recordings are legal evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
If police have physical control of these bodycams then there has to be mandated independent review on demand, with a solid way to verify the integrity of the record and no presumption of innocence if this is violated.
There should be no "presumption of innocence" in the question of whether a police officer should be fired for inappropriate use of force. This is because a decision about whether somebody is suitable for a job is not a criminal matter; there is no "innocence" or "guilt" in the decision, only "suitable" or "not suitable."
However, in the question of whether a police officer should be found criminally guilty, no: presumption of innocence is fundamental to the law, and there are good reasons for that.
However, an officer turning off their body camera (or disabling it) should be considered prima facie evidence of criminal intent.
There also needs to be mandated independent review without demand.
yes. And such review should be outside of the jurisdiction of the police.
...Frankly though, the cops should a) not be allowed to disable the cameras, and b) should not have access to the video on the cameras. Only the independent oversight organization should have access to the video without subpoena. That way the cops aren't able to use the video footage as an aid to creation of their story.
Yes, good suggestions. An officer disabling their camera and subsequently being involved in a killing should lead to immediate firing.
(and also be considered evidence of criminal intent).
Re: (Score:2)
I slightly disagree. They should be allowed to disable the cameras when they use the restroom. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
The US has a proud tradition of tainting the jury pool, conducting prosecution in public before a trial even starts.
You are focusing on who the footage gets released to when the problem is whether it gets released at all, or whether it is even captured.
Chauvin's case is irrelevant; it is a result, as stated from the very start, as a matter of cell phone footage likely being the only reason the matter was investigated at all.
Re: (Score:3)
NOPE.
The purpose of the cameras is to detect when the POLICE break the law.
By making it private, you allow the police to cover up crimes that they commit. The cover up happens even when most of the cops are honest because they are friends with the corrupt ones and do not believe what they did was 'so bad'.
Cop criminals happens less often than civilians committing crime (5%), but if you have a 100 officers, then odds say 4 of them will be bad.
Those 4 bad officers ruin it for the 96 good ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Those 4 bad officers ruin it for the 96 good ones.
All long as the other 96 aren't speaking out and turning the 4 in, there are 0 good ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely.It's currently a problem that edited cellphone videos are presented as "the whole truth and nothing but the truth", while important context is left out.
You mean like Trump's photoshoot in front of the church?
Black Murderers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
and more racist than any other country
That's definitely not true. Historically blacks have been more comfortable in Europe than in America, but Jews have been more comfortable in America than in Europe.
There is racism against both groups in both places, but we aren't a perfect society yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I imagine body cameras will continue to be a disappointment until they prove that the police are racist like the activists want.
There is already cellphone footage proving the point for the activists. The lack of bodycam footage is the police trying to deny reality, and yes the activists want that to stop. You seem to think this is a bad thing.
If you continually pretend racism doesn't exist then you are trying to stop anything being to fix it. At that point you're standing shoulder to shoulder with racists.
Re:Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
>"If you continually pretend racism doesn't exist then you are trying to stop anything being to fix it. "
And if one continually pretends that racism is the cause for the huge disproportion of black interaction with the police, then that, too, is trying to stop anything that can actually fix it. In fact, it can make things worse.
Hardly anyone thinks that racism doesn't exist. Hardly anyone thinks that police brutality doesn't exist. That they exist isn't or shouldn't be in question. What should be in question is how prevalent they are, how influential they are, what causes both, and how we can improve.
Labeling all, most, or even a huge proportion of police as "racist" or "brutal" is just as bad as labeling all, most, or even a huge proportion of blacks as "violent" or "criminal." Yet, the former seems to be very much the message right now.
Re: (Score:2)
And if one continually pretends that racism is the cause for the huge disproportion of black interaction with the police, then that, too, is trying to stop anything that can actually fix it. In fact, it can make things worse.
We know that not only is it the case that racism is the cause of that problem, but also that it's the cause of other problems in the criminal justice system, like black people being convicted more frequently for the same crimes, being harassed by police more often, more commonly being shot even when not resisting, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
>"We know that not only is it the case that racism is the cause of that problem,"
No, we do not.
>"but also that it's the cause of other problems in the criminal justice system, like black people being convicted more frequently for the same crimes, being harassed by police more often, more commonly being shot even when not resisting, etc."
There are plenty of studies and statistics to contradict what you just said. And if you are looking at numbers and not percentages (per capita, for example), any conc
Re: (Score:2)
''3x the average overdose and preexisting heart condition''
So the dude had a heroin addiction and the market sold him fentanyl. And 3x an average overdose is nothing for someone with an addiction. And even worse, how physically threatening can an opiate addict be to professional law enforcement. At the minimal, the human thing is to be even more careful and protect the weak. So your argument is BS. The cop wasn't physically threatened, and had to know he was dealing with an addict that most likely no one wo
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Unfortunately, for the media and the Left, there is not enough racism to fill the demand
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for trying so hard to meet that demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for agreeing that the demand exceeds supply.
Re: (Score:2)
It is no secret that some people need windmills to fight against. Then again there are other people who are happy to oblige with their vice signalling. I personally consider the latter far more harmful because it is inherently destructive.
Re: (Score:2)
Asking for a friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you start molesting your sister before or after she went through puberty?
Re:BLM = Communist Power Grab (Score:5, Funny)
This whole affair and the BLM riots and arson are only a pretext for a Communist Power Grab [...] This is a power grab of George Soros and his ANTIFA THUG Troops.
Christ you're an idiot. Everyone KNOWS that the ANTIFA are a false flag for the illuminati and Soros is just a puppet for the lizard men that live on the inside surface of the earth. Wake up, sheeple. Jesus.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Woah... you replied.
I thought I was having a laugh at a fire-and-forget troll, but looks like you're a genuine crank instead!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they are Commies with time machines coming from the 50/60's to take over the world from the past. Or Commies from Mars. [atomicavenue.com]
How long have you been in your parent's basement? You are sooo out of it. Right now the cool right wing paranoia is all Deep State, Bill Gates implanting microchips in the guise of vaccines, and Antifa invading small tow
Re: (Score:3)
This whole affair and the BLM riots and arson are only a pretext for a Communist Power Grab.
Not really. At least not intentionally by African-Americans. Take a look at the treatment of minorities in the USSR and CCP. They should be distancing themselves from the Communists to the greatest extent possible. Problem is, it's a deal with the devil to get sufficient support and funding to support legitimate protests. Much the same as the GOP partners with social conservatives. The fact that our political system only seems to work if it is polarized means that everyone must form a coalition with, at ti
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Laugh all you want, and perhaps justifiably so. But the real funny thing is how all the press releases from CHOP, CHAZ, ARSHOLE, whatever they call it, mimics the rhetoric of the communists. [mynorthwest.com]
Re: BLM = Communist Power Grab (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If there is no video.... (Score:4, Insightful)
If there is no video, then all charges should be dropped. And the cops are lying unless there is video.
I like this idea!!! They have the mean to record evidence but for any reason that that evidence doesn't exist. It's on them. Any charges/complaints/judgement should be made in favor of the person interacting with the cop.