3 ms·

Simple solution - remove qualified immunity for officers that don’t have recording equipment running during an enforcement action. Would solve the problem quic

• m463 6y ago
  that's an interesting idea. but how would you deal with legitimate malfunctions or folks that haven't been issued cameras?
  • John23832 6y ago
    Legitimate malfunctions should have evidence that they’re legitimate, and if you don’t gave a camera you don’t go on a beat.
  • olliej 6y ago
    I think there's an element of multiple officers all having concurrent hardware failures. The other things they'll do is ensure later responders never have their cameras pointing at the scene, so then they have officers with working cameras but nothing related to the event.
  • MR4D 6y ago
    The same way Nasa does. Or airlines. If you don't have one, you don't go. If your's isn't working, you don't go. Cameras should have the same checks that guns do before you go out. And yes, sometimes they break, but that should result in an appropriate error code. Finally, a hundred million cars run off computers in the US pretty reliably - police cameras should run with a similar level of reliability. If we've authorized people with the use of deadly force then we should take their cameras seriously.
• olliej 6y ago
  qualified immunity should not happen regardless - the modern incarnation is far removed from the original law, which was intended to mean judges couldn't be sued if their rulings were later found to be incorrect (e.g. the Supreme Court disagreed with them). As far as I can make out the modern version is police officers say that they believe they were acting appropriately, and that is sufficient to remove liability.
  • mcv 6y ago
    Qualified immunity is fine for things done in good faith, to the best of your ability, etc. It's unavoidable that you get things wrong, and people do need some leeway in their execution of their job. But people shouldn't have immunity when they act in bad faith, or when they should have known that an action is illegal or counter to the purpose of their job. Good/bad faith are hard to test objectively of course, but in some cases they are obvious, like when you're strangling or beating an unarmed person to death. But police officers should also know they're not supposed to shoot or taser someone who is not a direct threat, or pepperspray peaceful protesters in their face. Every officer should know that's not acceptable, and officers should therefore not be immune to prosecution if they do it anyway. But that also means having clear standards about police work, and officers being trained in those standards.
• austincheney 6y ago
  Lame. Sounds like some buzz word that’s been circulating on social media lately. Instead why not have proper management: * Camera is engaged by officer at start of engagement with public. * Failure of officer to start camera is grounds for termination, therefore no default immunity regardless. This should also apply to any intentional interference. * Once started the camera remains active until stopped by a remote party, such as dispatch. * Camera recordings are stored centrally at police department as controlled evidence. * Failure to maintain integrity or chain of custody is grounds for termination of police supervisor(s). Done. At least that is how my hometown does it.