5 ms·

Body cams are only part of the solution; if the rest of the system is broken, police misconduct won't be punished regardless of how hi-res and accurate the imag

Body cams are only part of the solution; if the rest of the system is broken, police misconduct won't be punished regardless of how hi-res and accurate the images of the misconduct are. We've been this before: brutality all the way up to homicide caught on tape, then let go with a slap on the wrist.

austincheney 6y ago
> We've been this before If you are speaking to videos from bystanders they are often problematic as evidence because usually they do not capture the entirety of the police encounter. In that case they could capture excess behavior but not the preliminary conditions that resulted in escalation of force. That was the valid legal defense for the officers involved In the Rodney King incident even though the conduct in the video looked grossly excessive. Police body cams exist to solve for gaps like that. Perhaps if additional video evidence had been present from the start of the Rodney King incident the officers would not have been found innocent. The goal, after all, is accountability.
- onemoresoop 6y ago
  How you’re kidding yourself, the police force+friends would do anything to hold onto that psychological power, they would not let a fellow cop who may even be a cold blooded murderer face justice, that would dent their projected power and would make being a cop a lot less glamorous and more like a regular job. It would be ideal but you’re forgetting this is America, a police state, more and pronounced lately
  - austincheney 6y ago
    Is there data to suggest the frequency with which police supervisors regularly destroy restricted evidence and what their motives are?
    - gremlinsinc 6y ago
      If there were do you think we'd be having these discussions? I mean the point of destroying evidence is to leave no trace, and you can't really do a study of things lost and forgotten... like you can't do a study or trace all the destroyed works of art and writings of the ancient world that have been destroyed and don't have copies of which nobody has ever seen except the original eye witness, who if they're alive - couldn't recite the book or re-paint the work of art...
      - austincheney 6y ago
        > If there were do you think we'd be having these discussions Yes, even more so.
- glangdale 6y ago
  (oops; typo on my part, I noticed - thanks for correctly interpreting my gibberish) I was indeed referring to that sort of video. But "context" is always going to be a get out of jail free card even with a bodycam if grand juries and prosecutors are willing to just plain make stuff up. So while there's some support for your point about the Rodney King stuff, the cops also made claims like "we thought he was on PCP" (which turned out not to be the case). Clearer video of Rodney King standing back up could still be interpreted as an intent to charge at the officers by a jury that's predisposed to believe everything that cops say. I'm currently seeing this play out in Sydney, Australia, where a cop just kicked an unresisting teen suspects' feet out from under him (while holding his arms behind his back). All the relevant material is on video, and yet we see officials more or less freely inventing exculpatory "context" that supposedly justifies what happens. If you have a network of people around the cops who will just accept "we were afraid for our lives" as an excuse to do anything, no amount of bodycams will solve that problem.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
onemoresoop 6y ago
Bodycams are not necessary, they’re like an awkward patch that can be conveniently removed when puss is coming out. Why are they able to stop body cams in the first place? What is the penalty for not turning it on? Thats sketchy and unclear and a convenient doorway to abuse. Bodycams should record every moment and store everything encrypted in a blackbox and not be viewed by anyone unless theres a problem and a judge allows it. And periodically erase themselves after a number of days/months. Or simply not use body cams at all but remove their immunity. That immunity is a carte blanche aka a licence to kill for the many who can’t temper their anger.
- austincheney 6y ago
  In my city police cannot stop the recording. I believe that is done by dispatch, but the police themselves are not provided that capability.
  - onemoresoop 6y ago
    But they have the option to when they start it. And many times they don’t start it right away. Little door to do devilish things, don’t you think? And most of these incidents when they don’t turn on their cameras have unclear consequences, it’s a brotherhood thing
    - austincheney 6y ago
      That sounds highly speculative. I imagine officers that fail to start their cameras appropriately are at the mercy of retaining their own legal counsel when questions of misconduct arise. The police department has shielded itself from liability by providing video recording equipment and when the officer chooses to perform their job without that equipment in violation of department policy that liability falls entirely on that officer.
      - onemoresoop 6y ago
        That liability falls entirely on the offending officer only when the story make wings and it’s too big to suppress, otherwise, they’re flexible with their ‘brothers’

austincheney 6y ago

> We've been this before If you are speaking to videos from bystanders they are often problematic as evidence because usually they do not capture the entirety of the police encounter. In that case they could capture excess behavior but not the preliminary conditions that resulted in escalation of force. That was the valid legal defense for the officers involved In the Rodney King incident even though the conduct in the video looked grossly excessive. Police body cams exist to solve for gaps like that. Perhaps if additional video evidence had been present from the start of the Rodney King incident the officers would not have been found innocent. The goal, after all, is accountability.

onemoresoop 6y ago
How you’re kidding yourself, the police force+friends would do anything to hold onto that psychological power, they would not let a fellow cop who may even be a cold blooded murderer face justice, that would dent their projected power and would make being a cop a lot less glamorous and more like a regular job. It would be ideal but you’re forgetting this is America, a police state, more and pronounced lately
- austincheney 6y ago
  Is there data to suggest the frequency with which police supervisors regularly destroy restricted evidence and what their motives are?
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    If there were do you think we'd be having these discussions? I mean the point of destroying evidence is to leave no trace, and you can't really do a study of things lost and forgotten... like you can't do a study or trace all the destroyed works of art and writings of the ancient world that have been destroyed and don't have copies of which nobody has ever seen except the original eye witness, who if they're alive - couldn't recite the book or re-paint the work of art...
    - austincheney 6y ago
      > If there were do you think we'd be having these discussions Yes, even more so.
glangdale 6y ago
(oops; typo on my part, I noticed - thanks for correctly interpreting my gibberish) I was indeed referring to that sort of video. But "context" is always going to be a get out of jail free card even with a bodycam if grand juries and prosecutors are willing to just plain make stuff up. So while there's some support for your point about the Rodney King stuff, the cops also made claims like "we thought he was on PCP" (which turned out not to be the case). Clearer video of Rodney King standing back up could still be interpreted as an intent to charge at the officers by a jury that's predisposed to believe everything that cops say. I'm currently seeing this play out in Sydney, Australia, where a cop just kicked an unresisting teen suspects' feet out from under him (while holding his arms behind his back). All the relevant material is on video, and yet we see officials more or less freely inventing exculpatory "context" that supposedly justifies what happens. If you have a network of people around the cops who will just accept "we were afraid for our lives" as an excuse to do anything, no amount of bodycams will solve that problem.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

onemoresoop 6y ago

Bodycams are not necessary, they’re like an awkward patch that can be conveniently removed when puss is coming out. Why are they able to stop body cams in the first place? What is the penalty for not turning it on? Thats sketchy and unclear and a convenient doorway to abuse. Bodycams should record every moment and store everything encrypted in a blackbox and not be viewed by anyone unless theres a problem and a judge allows it. And periodically erase themselves after a number of days/months. Or simply not use body cams at all but remove their immunity. That immunity is a carte blanche aka a licence to kill for the many who can’t temper their anger.

austincheney 6y ago
In my city police cannot stop the recording. I believe that is done by dispatch, but the police themselves are not provided that capability.
- onemoresoop 6y ago
  But they have the option to when they start it. And many times they don’t start it right away. Little door to do devilish things, don’t you think? And most of these incidents when they don’t turn on their cameras have unclear consequences, it’s a brotherhood thing
  - austincheney 6y ago
    That sounds highly speculative. I imagine officers that fail to start their cameras appropriately are at the mercy of retaining their own legal counsel when questions of misconduct arise. The police department has shielded itself from liability by providing video recording equipment and when the officer chooses to perform their job without that equipment in violation of department policy that liability falls entirely on that officer.
    - onemoresoop 6y ago
      That liability falls entirely on the offending officer only when the story make wings and it’s too big to suppress, otherwise, they’re flexible with their ‘brothers’