24 ms·

I was recently the victim of an armed kidnapping, escaping only by jumping out of my own car from the driver seat while in gear with the gunman in the passenger

I was recently the victim of an armed kidnapping, escaping only by jumping out of my own car from the driver seat while in gear with the gunman in the passenger seat. By the time the police arrived, my attacker escaped in my car and the first words out of the sergeants mouth was “cut the crap, quit jerking us around, what really happened?” Sure enough I was in a jurisdiction that only two months prior was equipped with vest cameras (due to community outrage over an execution style killing of a 21 year old black male pulled over with a phone the police thought was a gun). As an officer of the court myself I was beyond dismayed and obtained 2 different copies of police video from the scene...wouldn’t you know both officers vest videos were redacted and specifically edited out the audio of the sergeant’s first words to me and the sergeant’s video didn’t exist. The dvds even say redacted right on them, and I knew before I even watched, which is funny because I had to pay ~$100 for the video, basically paying for the time it took for the department to watch and redact the 1 part I really wanted. How would such a system have any effect of police officer behavior?

cryptonector 9y ago
Fixing this will have to be the next step. The first step was getting the body cams. Also, you could probably file a suit to get the unredacted video, and you could make a big stink about this. That's how you get to the next step.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  I would be shocked if the unredacted video still exists.
  - fao_ 9y ago
    It would be illegal otherwise, wouldn't it? Redaction of evidence
    - djrogers 9y ago
      You would have to prove a) that it was evidence of a crime, and b) the police had reason to believe or know it was such. In the absence of laws requiring full transparency and access to body cam footage, the body cams are just likely to be abused.
      - katastic 9y ago
        >You would have to prove a) that it was evidence of a crime, and b) the police had reason to believe or know it was such. Missing audio and a big "redacted" sticker is a pretty damning evidence that "Something" was removed. IF there was nothing to hide, why did they remove it?
        QAPereo 9y ago
        That’s logic, not Law.
        matt4077 9y ago
        Please send nudes. Thx.
        sctb 9y ago
        Please don't post like this here.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - mmalaaksonen 9y ago
        In contrast, full transparency of body cam footage could and would compromise ongoing investigations and identities of people in witness protection and so on. So full transparency in private/closed court or redacted versions showing only 'relevant' information in public/open court. Maybe full transparency after the information in the video becomes irrelevant, but micromanaging a hude amount of body cam footage would prove to be quite difficult.
  - Digory 9y ago
    In many (most?) US jurisdictions, bodycam video is cloud-hosted by Taser.[0] I don't have direct experience, but I'd bet Taser doesn't let podunk police departments really "erase" video. And given the volume, you'd think it's got to be built on AWS or another big cloud provider, with pretty good forensic tools. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/business/taser-international-dominates-the-police-body-camera-market.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/business/taser-internatio...
    - krapp 9y ago
      >I don't have direct experience, but I'd bet Taser doesn't let podunk police departments really "erase" video. The NYTimes article you posted hints at an uncomfortably cozy relationship between Taser, law enforcement and local governments... Yet as Taser works to sell cameras and software to more departments, it is coming under fire for questionable business practices. In some instances, it has paid police chiefs to travel to Taser conferences. In other cases, chiefs who have bought Taser products have joined the company as consultants shortly after leaving public service. And several cities have awarded contracts to Taser without competitive bidding. I wouldn't trust Taser to act as faithful or impartial stewards of this data, when it's in their best business interest to maintain a positive relationship with the very entities whose corruption it exists to expose.
      - goialoq 9y ago
        Taser also operates a legal-defense-aid operation for police officers who use Tasers to break the law.
        tuxxy 9y ago
        I'm gonna need a source for that.
        sprucely 9y ago
        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/tasers-delirium-defense/ http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/tasers-delirium-...
- throwaway000025 9y ago
  The body cams need to serialize their stream to a special satellite or cell provider, and a chain of auditable custody needs to be preserved at multiple data centers. Police cannot be the masters of their own footage. It needs to exist beyond bribery, lust and international intimidation. It needs to be out of their hands and into a web of trust, as soon as the photons hit the sensors. Then it comes down to jamming, tampering, malfunction, sabotage, and any misbehavior that otherwise prevents useful recordings, since we’re talking about wearables that can be covered, discarded and left behind, even if thy can’t be turned off. But if it does get recorded, it needs to get locked up tighter than handcuffs. That video needs to dust off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
  - guywhocodes 9y ago
    I think it would be enough if they encrypted the video contents and stored in blocks out of order, ideally I would also have it streamed but let's be realistic about bandwidth and availability requirements for that. In the end there will always be significant on device storage. Make sure that the people who are responsible for the decryption and delivery of the content have incitement that the result is useful.
  - steamer25 9y ago
    We just need to establish a legal precept that if the body cam footage isn't there to corroborate the cops' story, we assume the worst and they get held accountable for anything a plaintiff is able to plausibly allege. Under that scenario, most cops would become the biggest advocates for e.g., redundancies, backups and transparency.
    - apsec112 9y ago
      This seems to abolish the right to be "innocent until proven guilty". It's always possible to allege a crime that no one can prove didn't happen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot), so without a presumption of innocence, the system essentially puts the accused at the mercy of the accuser.
- craigsmansion 9y ago
  > Fixing this will have to be the next step. Depends really. Moving to a different country would be my next step personally.
  - m_mueller 9y ago
    Yep. Stories like these have made made me decide some time ago that I will never bring my family to the US, no matter the offer.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - corndoge 9y ago
      Breivik made me decide some time ago that I will never bring my family to Norway, no matter the offer.
      - m_mueller 9y ago
        If 'Breivik' happened regularly, even just every three years, then I would see your point. A society that produces a Breivik (i.e. some crazy fascist who thinks killing the most children he can is what he should do with his time) every three years must indeed be sick. For these reasons I'm currently also concerned about most European countries. Desth rate statistics don't do justice to the looming threat of a group/tribe/clan/haggle of people who are out to just kill out-group people no matter what. I'm not concerned much about the risk itself, but I am about what it does to civic life.
        corndoge 9y ago
        Norway's massacre rate is on par with the US when you consider that Norway has 1.62% of the US population.
        m_mueller 9y ago
        This whole thread started with me saying that police overstepping their boundaries is one reason I wouldn't move my family to the US. Obviously that doesn't just apply there though. The massacre thing was brought up as a weird counterargument - which I'd file as a typical case of whataboutism. I agree that massacres aren't a good reason against the US, and for that matter one would rather avoid many western European countries atm if at all.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  > The first step was getting the body cams Nonsense. Cameras will be always used to benefit only the police as long as they control them: it's easy to cherry-pick what to record and, later on, what to release. It's easy to take off a camera altogether. You need 3rd parties (e.g. bystanders) to be able to record what's happening and stream it it safe storage in real time.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    Nonsense. Cameras will be always used to benefit only the police as long as they control them: it's easy to cherry-pick what to record and, later on, what to release. It's easy to take off a camera altogether. You need 3rd parties (e.g. bystanders) to be able to record what's happening and stream it it safe storage in real time. It's sad that you're being downvoted for saying this, because it's true. As long as police are the only ones legally or practically empowered to film these encounters, they will be the ones empowered to control the narrative. The right of citizens to film police encounters without harassment or threats is imperative.
TomMarius 9y ago
(I'm not American) Smells like deception, can't you sue? You could in Europe.
- wyldfire 9y ago
  Yes, you always can. You'd probably have to make a claim of some kind of injury and it would likely involve a significant time investment if not also money. To what end? It's too easy not to follow through on these things.
frogpelt 9y ago
How was the case handled? Did they find the gunman? Was he charged? I ask because, honestly, I don't think I care what they police say when they first walk up as long as they solve the crime, catch the perpetrator. The problem we have nowadays is that we get to see "how the (justice system) sausage is made" a lot more than we used to. And it's disturbing. But those guys out there with uniforms on are the ones trying to survive every day and bring criminals to justice. It's easy to be an armchair quarterback.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  I feel being shocked at how this person was treated is not just "armchair quarterbacking". Given the power and trust we place in police, I don't feel it's unreasonable to expect they treat people with respect.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    ... and that they're punished pretty severely when they betray that trust.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      Sometimes.
    - syshum 9y ago
      They are? I have been following police abuse for nearly 15 years... I do not see any evidence of that
      - icebraining 9y ago
        I think gozur88 is following on the previous statement "I don't feel it's unreasonable to expect..."
      - andrewaylett 9y ago
        I think -- but am not certain, not being the GP -- that's their point: they don't see it happening, but think that a reasonable person would expect it.
KGIII 9y ago
> As an officer of the court myself ... Could you elaborate on that? I have some thoughts but want to know if my thoughts are really valid. What type of court officer are you? Is it in the same jurisdiction? Things like that. I don't want to prejudice your responses. (I should also mention that my thoughts aren't going to put any blame on you.)
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  My thoughts here would be "is an attorney".
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Mine was prosecuting attorney. I don't think defense attorneys are considered officers of the court, but I'm not sure and it may vary by jurisdiction.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      All attorneys are considered officers of the court (at least in America). It’s concomitant with the various ethical regulations imposed on licensed lawyers.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- geggam 9y ago
  If you represent yourself pro se you are also an officer of the court.
- stult 9y ago
  In practical terms in the US, nearly any time someone uses that phrase, they are an attorney. From context, OP is probably neither a prosecutor nor a criminal defense attorney, because they would likely mention that given its relevance. Technically though, officer of the court is a pretty broad term that includes judges, magistrates, medical examiners and coroners, process servers, interpreters, and even bail bondsman. Anyone who plays a role in the functioning of the court and has duties to ensure justice is carried out. But really in practice you never hear anyone except lawyers refer to themselves as such. It's usually a phrase we use to indicate that messing with us means messing with the judicial system, which tends to invite harsh punishment from judges, who are after all themselves attorneys.
ImSkeptical 9y ago
Why does what the cop said matter? It sounds like a pretty wild story, so I'm not surprised someone might doubt it on first hearing about it. Did they beat you up, refuse to help you, or something like that?
- Danihan 9y ago
  Exactly, being rude and blunt right away is probably about the most efficient thing they can do. I bet 70% of the time people change their stories when confronted with that line.
  - goialoq 9y ago
    And of course it doesn't matter whether the story is true or false, just the the police officer coerces the person of interest to tell as story the police officer likes.
  - rconti 9y ago
    I couldn't disagree more. The police are there to gather evidence. They're effectively tainting evidence if they mistreat people or ask leading questions or the like. You'd better believe it matters when they come after you for (say) making false statements to the police, and it's their word against yours, and the court always sides with the cops.
    - zaroth 9y ago
      It turns out that the best way to gather evidence isn't actually polite deference to every wild story you hear! I don't understand your point at all about "tainting evidence" and how that could possibly follow from brusque questioning.
      - matt4077 9y ago
        "Brusque questioning" will obviously be applied completely subjective. Once you start deferring to police officers' immediate judgement, the legal process is tainted to amplify every single stereotype police officers hold. White victims will obviously be treated with more deference than blacks, Spanish-speaking people will all be assumed to be illegal immigrants etc. So the young man accused of something will be "brusquely questioned" within the first minutes and confess to the crime. While the old woman is treated with deference, has a chance to talk to a lawyer, and never gets convicted. And the worst thing is the spiral, self-amplifying nature: start like that, and the sort of people already suspect will be the only ones actually being charged with crimes and convicted, which will reinforce all the ideas the process started out with.
drharby 9y ago
So at what point are leos liable to destruction of evidence? Whats the current state of affairs?
literallycancer 9y ago
How about firing anyone who tampers with the evidence? And I mean actually let them go, not give them indefinite paid vacation.
- katastic 9y ago
  My local PD recently sent a guy home for 10 days WITHOUT pay for merely getting mad at his son's football game and throwing a helmet. It was unbecoming of their professional standards (even off-duty) and he's representing the community. It even made the news (how I heard about it). So remember, there are plenty of good cops and good forces out there. It's just the shit ones never get held accountable.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    I hear these stories and on one hand I am sad for the good cops and forces out there. On the other I think we do have to focus on the bad ones because we need to fix it. Stories like this are still valuable because they remind us that it is possible to hold your police force to an appropriate standard.
  - aryehof 9y ago
    At issue is that the public at large have lost faith that "good" cops and forces will do anything about "bad" cops, that don't "make the news".
    - jopsen 9y ago
      to be fair it only takes one bad Apple to ruin a bunch..
  - fnabl 9y ago
    People and cops are not "good" or "bad". People who work in retail who grow to hate customers are not bad. Most probably want to yell at or strangle certain customers but they don't. Giving people power without accountability is the problem.
a3n 9y ago
We'll all have to become gargoyles, recording everything around us.
bpchaps 9y ago
If you're still interested in doing research, you could potentially do a foia request for the communications of the people involved in redaction.
CyberDildonics 9y ago
If they won't help recover your ipad, can you connect that as damages and somehow sue for the redacted parts of the tape?
stretchwithme 9y ago
I guess citizens will have to be the ones wearing body cameras.
- RHSeeger 9y ago
  I hear about people recording the police with their phones now and again, and it always makes me think of the balance between 1. If I have my phone on and recording, the police can seize it (ie, grab it from me). At best, I'd be able to turn it off, but it's been shown multiple times that they can force me to provide my fingerprint to unlock it. 2. If I turn my phone off (so they need my pin, which they can't force from me), I can't record.
  - stretchwithme 9y ago
    I would stop using your fingerprint to unlock.
  - CJefferson 9y ago
    I would love an app which started recording, while making best effort to get the video off my phone and into the cloud ASAP, perhaps sending only sound and a low quality image if bandwidth is low.
    - ajnin 9y ago
      The Owncloud Android app (https://f-droid.org/packages/com.owncloud.android/ https://f-droid.org/packages/com.owncloud.android/) has options to automatically upload pictures and videos as they are taken. It's working well for pictures, for videos it tends to fail if they are too big but I guess that with suitably low quality settings that would be acceptable.
    - raisedbyninjas 9y ago
      https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bambuser.broadcaster&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bambuser.b...
    - mikeytown2 9y ago
dreamache 9y ago
Automatically upload footage to something like the IPFS. Blockchain that shit, immutable.
Immortalin 9y ago
Force all videos to be streamed live publicly but locked under encryption and the key would only be automatically released afterwards with a smart contract e.g. on court orders or request
- Immortalin 9y ago
  Edit: Can someone explain why this comment is being downvoted?
paulie_a 9y ago
While cameras can fail, every incident should be heavily investigated. Redacted videos is beyond absurd outside of special circumstances.
confounded 9y ago
With meaningful regulation to prevent outrageous crap like this! Ideally the camera streams would be maintained by an independent, non-commercial body, with clear tenets, written with privacy in mind.
wodenokoto 9y ago
I'm sorry for what happen to you. It sounds like quite the daring escape and I'm impressed by your courage to follow through on it. You're a real life action hero for escaping a gun man in a moving vehicle!
moomin 9y ago
Campaign Zero have a list of best practices for police cameras. To the best of my knowledge, no police force follows them (because then they wouldn’t be able to pull stuff like this without repercussions)
jopsen 9y ago
If you're trying to change officer behavior I suggest you start with training manuals and procedures. Then move on to actually train officers for a few years before putting them on the street. But yeah, it's expensive, so it's more convenient for Americans to be tough on crime. The fix here is likely political... body cams are a desperate attempt to make things a tiny bit better...
marvin 9y ago
It is beyond my comprehension how the New York Times could cite a study on this without mentioning the blatant abuse of body cameras, of which anecdotal evidence like yours shows up _all the time_.
Bromskloss 9y ago
What is the redaction supposed to be used for?
- raisedbyninjas 9y ago
  It's supposed to protect the privacy of people in the video, e.g. recordings in bathrooms, bystanders, etc.
abalone 9y ago
I'm just curious what their legal justification is for redacting those portions of the video. There must be some pretext, right? Otherwise you could sue with evidence in hand. Is it that this constitutes interrogation tactics? I know in other cases police have redacted tactics on the premise it would reduce their effectiveness.

cryptonector 9y ago

Fixing this will have to be the next step. The first step was getting the body cams. Also, you could probably file a suit to get the unredacted video, and you could make a big stink about this. That's how you get to the next step.

s73ver_ 9y ago
I would be shocked if the unredacted video still exists.
- fao_ 9y ago
  It would be illegal otherwise, wouldn't it? Redaction of evidence
  - djrogers 9y ago
    You would have to prove a) that it was evidence of a crime, and b) the police had reason to believe or know it was such. In the absence of laws requiring full transparency and access to body cam footage, the body cams are just likely to be abused.
    - katastic 9y ago
      >You would have to prove a) that it was evidence of a crime, and b) the police had reason to believe or know it was such. Missing audio and a big "redacted" sticker is a pretty damning evidence that "Something" was removed. IF there was nothing to hide, why did they remove it?
      - QAPereo 9y ago
        That’s logic, not Law.
        matt4077 9y ago
        Please send nudes. Thx.
        sctb 9y ago
        Please don't post like this here.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - mmalaaksonen 9y ago
      In contrast, full transparency of body cam footage could and would compromise ongoing investigations and identities of people in witness protection and so on. So full transparency in private/closed court or redacted versions showing only 'relevant' information in public/open court. Maybe full transparency after the information in the video becomes irrelevant, but micromanaging a hude amount of body cam footage would prove to be quite difficult.
- Digory 9y ago
  In many (most?) US jurisdictions, bodycam video is cloud-hosted by Taser.[0] I don't have direct experience, but I'd bet Taser doesn't let podunk police departments really "erase" video. And given the volume, you'd think it's got to be built on AWS or another big cloud provider, with pretty good forensic tools. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/business/taser-international-dominates-the-police-body-camera-market.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/business/taser-internatio...
  - krapp 9y ago
    >I don't have direct experience, but I'd bet Taser doesn't let podunk police departments really "erase" video. The NYTimes article you posted hints at an uncomfortably cozy relationship between Taser, law enforcement and local governments... Yet as Taser works to sell cameras and software to more departments, it is coming under fire for questionable business practices. In some instances, it has paid police chiefs to travel to Taser conferences. In other cases, chiefs who have bought Taser products have joined the company as consultants shortly after leaving public service. And several cities have awarded contracts to Taser without competitive bidding. I wouldn't trust Taser to act as faithful or impartial stewards of this data, when it's in their best business interest to maintain a positive relationship with the very entities whose corruption it exists to expose.
    - goialoq 9y ago
      Taser also operates a legal-defense-aid operation for police officers who use Tasers to break the law.
      - tuxxy 9y ago
        I'm gonna need a source for that.
        sprucely 9y ago
        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/tasers-delirium-defense/ http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/tasers-delirium-...
throwaway000025 9y ago
The body cams need to serialize their stream to a special satellite or cell provider, and a chain of auditable custody needs to be preserved at multiple data centers. Police cannot be the masters of their own footage. It needs to exist beyond bribery, lust and international intimidation. It needs to be out of their hands and into a web of trust, as soon as the photons hit the sensors. Then it comes down to jamming, tampering, malfunction, sabotage, and any misbehavior that otherwise prevents useful recordings, since we’re talking about wearables that can be covered, discarded and left behind, even if thy can’t be turned off. But if it does get recorded, it needs to get locked up tighter than handcuffs. That video needs to dust off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
- guywhocodes 9y ago
  I think it would be enough if they encrypted the video contents and stored in blocks out of order, ideally I would also have it streamed but let's be realistic about bandwidth and availability requirements for that. In the end there will always be significant on device storage. Make sure that the people who are responsible for the decryption and delivery of the content have incitement that the result is useful.
- steamer25 9y ago
  We just need to establish a legal precept that if the body cam footage isn't there to corroborate the cops' story, we assume the worst and they get held accountable for anything a plaintiff is able to plausibly allege. Under that scenario, most cops would become the biggest advocates for e.g., redundancies, backups and transparency.
  - apsec112 9y ago
    This seems to abolish the right to be "innocent until proven guilty". It's always possible to allege a crime that no one can prove didn't happen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot), so without a presumption of innocence, the system essentially puts the accused at the mercy of the accuser.
craigsmansion 9y ago
> Fixing this will have to be the next step. Depends really. Moving to a different country would be my next step personally.
- m_mueller 9y ago
  Yep. Stories like these have made made me decide some time ago that I will never bring my family to the US, no matter the offer.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - corndoge 9y ago
    Breivik made me decide some time ago that I will never bring my family to Norway, no matter the offer.
    - m_mueller 9y ago
      If 'Breivik' happened regularly, even just every three years, then I would see your point. A society that produces a Breivik (i.e. some crazy fascist who thinks killing the most children he can is what he should do with his time) every three years must indeed be sick. For these reasons I'm currently also concerned about most European countries. Desth rate statistics don't do justice to the looming threat of a group/tribe/clan/haggle of people who are out to just kill out-group people no matter what. I'm not concerned much about the risk itself, but I am about what it does to civic life.
      - corndoge 9y ago
        Norway's massacre rate is on par with the US when you consider that Norway has 1.62% of the US population.
        m_mueller 9y ago
        This whole thread started with me saying that police overstepping their boundaries is one reason I wouldn't move my family to the US. Obviously that doesn't just apply there though. The massacre thing was brought up as a weird counterargument - which I'd file as a typical case of whataboutism. I agree that massacres aren't a good reason against the US, and for that matter one would rather avoid many western European countries atm if at all.
eeZah7Ux 9y ago
> The first step was getting the body cams Nonsense. Cameras will be always used to benefit only the police as long as they control them: it's easy to cherry-pick what to record and, later on, what to release. It's easy to take off a camera altogether. You need 3rd parties (e.g. bystanders) to be able to record what's happening and stream it it safe storage in real time.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  Nonsense. Cameras will be always used to benefit only the police as long as they control them: it's easy to cherry-pick what to record and, later on, what to release. It's easy to take off a camera altogether. You need 3rd parties (e.g. bystanders) to be able to record what's happening and stream it it safe storage in real time. It's sad that you're being downvoted for saying this, because it's true. As long as police are the only ones legally or practically empowered to film these encounters, they will be the ones empowered to control the narrative. The right of citizens to film police encounters without harassment or threats is imperative.

TomMarius 9y ago

(I'm not American) Smells like deception, can't you sue? You could in Europe.

wyldfire 9y ago
Yes, you always can. You'd probably have to make a claim of some kind of injury and it would likely involve a significant time investment if not also money. To what end? It's too easy not to follow through on these things.

frogpelt 9y ago

How was the case handled? Did they find the gunman? Was he charged? I ask because, honestly, I don't think I care what they police say when they first walk up as long as they solve the crime, catch the perpetrator. The problem we have nowadays is that we get to see "how the (justice system) sausage is made" a lot more than we used to. And it's disturbing. But those guys out there with uniforms on are the ones trying to survive every day and bring criminals to justice. It's easy to be an armchair quarterback.

s73ver_ 9y ago
I feel being shocked at how this person was treated is not just "armchair quarterbacking". Given the power and trust we place in police, I don't feel it's unreasonable to expect they treat people with respect.
- gozur88 9y ago
  ... and that they're punished pretty severely when they betray that trust.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    Sometimes.
  - syshum 9y ago
    They are? I have been following police abuse for nearly 15 years... I do not see any evidence of that
    - icebraining 9y ago
      I think gozur88 is following on the previous statement "I don't feel it's unreasonable to expect..."
    - andrewaylett 9y ago
      I think -- but am not certain, not being the GP -- that's their point: they don't see it happening, but think that a reasonable person would expect it.

KGIII 9y ago

> As an officer of the court myself ... Could you elaborate on that? I have some thoughts but want to know if my thoughts are really valid. What type of court officer are you? Is it in the same jurisdiction? Things like that. I don't want to prejudice your responses. (I should also mention that my thoughts aren't going to put any blame on you.)

FireBeyond 9y ago
My thoughts here would be "is an attorney".
- KGIII 9y ago
  Mine was prosecuting attorney. I don't think defense attorneys are considered officers of the court, but I'm not sure and it may vary by jurisdiction.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    All attorneys are considered officers of the court (at least in America). It’s concomitant with the various ethical regulations imposed on licensed lawyers.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
geggam 9y ago
If you represent yourself pro se you are also an officer of the court.
stult 9y ago
In practical terms in the US, nearly any time someone uses that phrase, they are an attorney. From context, OP is probably neither a prosecutor nor a criminal defense attorney, because they would likely mention that given its relevance. Technically though, officer of the court is a pretty broad term that includes judges, magistrates, medical examiners and coroners, process servers, interpreters, and even bail bondsman. Anyone who plays a role in the functioning of the court and has duties to ensure justice is carried out. But really in practice you never hear anyone except lawyers refer to themselves as such. It's usually a phrase we use to indicate that messing with us means messing with the judicial system, which tends to invite harsh punishment from judges, who are after all themselves attorneys.

ImSkeptical 9y ago

Why does what the cop said matter? It sounds like a pretty wild story, so I'm not surprised someone might doubt it on first hearing about it. Did they beat you up, refuse to help you, or something like that?

Danihan 9y ago
Exactly, being rude and blunt right away is probably about the most efficient thing they can do. I bet 70% of the time people change their stories when confronted with that line.
- goialoq 9y ago
  And of course it doesn't matter whether the story is true or false, just the the police officer coerces the person of interest to tell as story the police officer likes.
- rconti 9y ago
  I couldn't disagree more. The police are there to gather evidence. They're effectively tainting evidence if they mistreat people or ask leading questions or the like. You'd better believe it matters when they come after you for (say) making false statements to the police, and it's their word against yours, and the court always sides with the cops.
  - zaroth 9y ago
    It turns out that the best way to gather evidence isn't actually polite deference to every wild story you hear! I don't understand your point at all about "tainting evidence" and how that could possibly follow from brusque questioning.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      "Brusque questioning" will obviously be applied completely subjective. Once you start deferring to police officers' immediate judgement, the legal process is tainted to amplify every single stereotype police officers hold. White victims will obviously be treated with more deference than blacks, Spanish-speaking people will all be assumed to be illegal immigrants etc. So the young man accused of something will be "brusquely questioned" within the first minutes and confess to the crime. While the old woman is treated with deference, has a chance to talk to a lawyer, and never gets convicted. And the worst thing is the spiral, self-amplifying nature: start like that, and the sort of people already suspect will be the only ones actually being charged with crimes and convicted, which will reinforce all the ideas the process started out with.

drharby 9y ago

So at what point are leos liable to destruction of evidence? Whats the current state of affairs?

literallycancer 9y ago

How about firing anyone who tampers with the evidence? And I mean actually let them go, not give them indefinite paid vacation.

katastic 9y ago
My local PD recently sent a guy home for 10 days WITHOUT pay for merely getting mad at his son's football game and throwing a helmet. It was unbecoming of their professional standards (even off-duty) and he's representing the community. It even made the news (how I heard about it). So remember, there are plenty of good cops and good forces out there. It's just the shit ones never get held accountable.
- mulmen 9y ago
  I hear these stories and on one hand I am sad for the good cops and forces out there. On the other I think we do have to focus on the bad ones because we need to fix it. Stories like this are still valuable because they remind us that it is possible to hold your police force to an appropriate standard.
- aryehof 9y ago
  At issue is that the public at large have lost faith that "good" cops and forces will do anything about "bad" cops, that don't "make the news".
  - jopsen 9y ago
    to be fair it only takes one bad Apple to ruin a bunch..
- fnabl 9y ago
  People and cops are not "good" or "bad". People who work in retail who grow to hate customers are not bad. Most probably want to yell at or strangle certain customers but they don't. Giving people power without accountability is the problem.

a3n 9y ago

We'll all have to become gargoyles, recording everything around us.

bpchaps 9y ago

If you're still interested in doing research, you could potentially do a foia request for the communications of the people involved in redaction.

CyberDildonics 9y ago

If they won't help recover your ipad, can you connect that as damages and somehow sue for the redacted parts of the tape?

stretchwithme 9y ago

I guess citizens will have to be the ones wearing body cameras.

RHSeeger 9y ago
I hear about people recording the police with their phones now and again, and it always makes me think of the balance between 1. If I have my phone on and recording, the police can seize it (ie, grab it from me). At best, I'd be able to turn it off, but it's been shown multiple times that they can force me to provide my fingerprint to unlock it. 2. If I turn my phone off (so they need my pin, which they can't force from me), I can't record.
- stretchwithme 9y ago
  I would stop using your fingerprint to unlock.
- CJefferson 9y ago
  I would love an app which started recording, while making best effort to get the video off my phone and into the cloud ASAP, perhaps sending only sound and a low quality image if bandwidth is low.
  - ajnin 9y ago
    The Owncloud Android app (https://f-droid.org/packages/com.owncloud.android/ https://f-droid.org/packages/com.owncloud.android/) has options to automatically upload pictures and videos as they are taken. It's working well for pictures, for videos it tends to fail if they are too big but I guess that with suitably low quality settings that would be acceptable.
  - raisedbyninjas 9y ago
    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bambuser.broadcaster&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bambuser.b...
  - mikeytown2 9y ago

dreamache 9y ago

Automatically upload footage to something like the IPFS. Blockchain that shit, immutable.

Immortalin 9y ago

Force all videos to be streamed live publicly but locked under encryption and the key would only be automatically released afterwards with a smart contract e.g. on court orders or request

Immortalin 9y ago
Edit: Can someone explain why this comment is being downvoted?

paulie_a 9y ago

While cameras can fail, every incident should be heavily investigated. Redacted videos is beyond absurd outside of special circumstances.

confounded 9y ago

With meaningful regulation to prevent outrageous crap like this! Ideally the camera streams would be maintained by an independent, non-commercial body, with clear tenets, written with privacy in mind.

wodenokoto 9y ago

I'm sorry for what happen to you. It sounds like quite the daring escape and I'm impressed by your courage to follow through on it. You're a real life action hero for escaping a gun man in a moving vehicle!

moomin 9y ago

Campaign Zero have a list of best practices for police cameras. To the best of my knowledge, no police force follows them (because then they wouldn’t be able to pull stuff like this without repercussions)

jopsen 9y ago

If you're trying to change officer behavior I suggest you start with training manuals and procedures. Then move on to actually train officers for a few years before putting them on the street. But yeah, it's expensive, so it's more convenient for Americans to be tough on crime. The fix here is likely political... body cams are a desperate attempt to make things a tiny bit better...

marvin 9y ago

It is beyond my comprehension how the New York Times could cite a study on this without mentioning the blatant abuse of body cameras, of which anecdotal evidence like yours shows up _all the time_.

Bromskloss 9y ago

What is the redaction supposed to be used for?

raisedbyninjas 9y ago
It's supposed to protect the privacy of people in the video, e.g. recordings in bathrooms, bystanders, etc.

abalone 9y ago

I'm just curious what their legal justification is for redacting those portions of the video. There must be some pretext, right? Otherwise you could sue with evidence in hand. Is it that this constitutes interrogation tactics? I know in other cases police have redacted tactics on the premise it would reduce their effectiveness.