4 ms·

If the police want footage, then the police should go knocking on doors to ask for footage. And the police should expect to be told to come back with a warrant.

otterley 7y ago
Why should those of us who want to efficiently investigate crime in our neighborhoods, and who want criminals caught and prosecuted quickly, restrain ourselves from cooperating with the police we pay to do just those things? It's not like they're asking us for footage of activity inside our homes.
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  We shouldn't restrain ourselves. (And we don't, at least I don't). Let's cut the bullshit: if the cops are looking for someone matching your exact description or time+place with minimal doubt, you are probably not doing the "lord's work" as folks from the Southern US would say.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  Because the police are allowed to lie to you. Are they looking for a particular person, or when a blue sedan that may look like yours drove by? Who knows — you should always exercise discretion.
  - geggam 7y ago
    >Because the police are allowed to lie to you. This IMO needs to change, if they can legally lie to you they can lie in court. They do both.
    - losteric 7y ago
      No, police are not allowed to lie in court... and there are limits to how far they can stretch the truth in interviews/investigations.
      - geggam 7y ago
        Legally they arent allowed to lie, but they do. Anyone who has been in court has seen it. You have to have proof they are lying to get them to stop.
        otterley 7y ago
        That's true of any witness, though. Perjury is a crime, but you have to prove it. In the trial context, good defense attorneys will be able to introduce contradictory evidence, or will challenge the credibility of a witness by finding facts that make them look bad -- even police officers. With police officers it's a bit harder, though, because the public largely believes (wrongly, I'm afraid) that police are more trustworthy than the general public.
        geggam 7y ago
        Cops arent just any witness. If they are caught perjuring all the cases they testified against are eligible to be retried. I have heard this discussed in court as a reason to not find the officer guilty. Records get sealed of course and you cant discuss it. https://www.innocenceproject.org/prevalence-police-lying/ https://www.innocenceproject.org/prevalence-police-lying/
    - Spooky23 7y ago
      Lying in court is one thing, but it’s been accepted that the police can use deception to get information. It makes sense. In many cases, subjects of investigations are unaware of them. You may never have a situation where you wouldn’t want to share camera footage with authorities. But many people do, for a variety of reasons, and creating a norm where your home is a node of some surveillance network has obvious negative potentials. The whole ecosystem of fear around home surveillance, Nextdoor, etc is awful and companies like Amazon are exploiting it without regard to the impact that it will have.
      - otterley 7y ago
        > You may never have a situation where you wouldn’t want to share camera footage with authorities. But many people do, for a variety of reasons ... For example? > Creating a norm where your home is a node of some surveillance network has obvious negative potentials Would you mind explaining what those are? They're not "obvious" to me.
  - otterley 7y ago
    I agree with you isofar as lying as a means of extracting a confession from a suspect is wrong. But I don't see any harm in providing footage of the outside of my home, and quite frankly, I can't think of a situation in which police would have to lie to me to get it.
    - jopsen 7y ago
      I think the problem is that trust in American police is very low. Given the training and conduct this cannot be surprising. The number of stories where police act in bad faith is overwhelming. So I get why people would be hesitant to collaborate -- your neighbor might get shot of you report a door left open.
- wwweston 7y ago
  > efficiently investigate Efficiently investigating is pretty far down my list of priorities in this context. Accountably investigating, accurately investigating, and norm/right-respecting investigating are above above efficiency, though I'm glad if it can follow those. Having to contact and converse with the owner who put up the doorbell cam contributes to this. Having oversight from a judge contributes more.

otterley 7y ago

Why should those of us who want to efficiently investigate crime in our neighborhoods, and who want criminals caught and prosecuted quickly, restrain ourselves from cooperating with the police we pay to do just those things? It's not like they're asking us for footage of activity inside our homes.

GhettoMaestro 7y ago
We shouldn't restrain ourselves. (And we don't, at least I don't). Let's cut the bullshit: if the cops are looking for someone matching your exact description or time+place with minimal doubt, you are probably not doing the "lord's work" as folks from the Southern US would say.
Spooky23 7y ago
Because the police are allowed to lie to you. Are they looking for a particular person, or when a blue sedan that may look like yours drove by? Who knows — you should always exercise discretion.
- geggam 7y ago
  >Because the police are allowed to lie to you. This IMO needs to change, if they can legally lie to you they can lie in court. They do both.
  - losteric 7y ago
    No, police are not allowed to lie in court... and there are limits to how far they can stretch the truth in interviews/investigations.
    - geggam 7y ago
      Legally they arent allowed to lie, but they do. Anyone who has been in court has seen it. You have to have proof they are lying to get them to stop.
      - otterley 7y ago
        That's true of any witness, though. Perjury is a crime, but you have to prove it. In the trial context, good defense attorneys will be able to introduce contradictory evidence, or will challenge the credibility of a witness by finding facts that make them look bad -- even police officers. With police officers it's a bit harder, though, because the public largely believes (wrongly, I'm afraid) that police are more trustworthy than the general public.
        geggam 7y ago
        Cops arent just any witness. If they are caught perjuring all the cases they testified against are eligible to be retried. I have heard this discussed in court as a reason to not find the officer guilty. Records get sealed of course and you cant discuss it. https://www.innocenceproject.org/prevalence-police-lying/ https://www.innocenceproject.org/prevalence-police-lying/
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    Lying in court is one thing, but it’s been accepted that the police can use deception to get information. It makes sense. In many cases, subjects of investigations are unaware of them. You may never have a situation where you wouldn’t want to share camera footage with authorities. But many people do, for a variety of reasons, and creating a norm where your home is a node of some surveillance network has obvious negative potentials. The whole ecosystem of fear around home surveillance, Nextdoor, etc is awful and companies like Amazon are exploiting it without regard to the impact that it will have.
    - otterley 7y ago
      > You may never have a situation where you wouldn’t want to share camera footage with authorities. But many people do, for a variety of reasons ... For example? > Creating a norm where your home is a node of some surveillance network has obvious negative potentials Would you mind explaining what those are? They're not "obvious" to me.
- otterley 7y ago
  I agree with you isofar as lying as a means of extracting a confession from a suspect is wrong. But I don't see any harm in providing footage of the outside of my home, and quite frankly, I can't think of a situation in which police would have to lie to me to get it.
  - jopsen 7y ago
    I think the problem is that trust in American police is very low. Given the training and conduct this cannot be surprising. The number of stories where police act in bad faith is overwhelming. So I get why people would be hesitant to collaborate -- your neighbor might get shot of you report a door left open.
wwweston 7y ago
> efficiently investigate Efficiently investigating is pretty far down my list of priorities in this context. Accountably investigating, accurately investigating, and norm/right-respecting investigating are above above efficiency, though I'm glad if it can follow those. Having to contact and converse with the owner who put up the doorbell cam contributes to this. Having oversight from a judge contributes more.