9 ms·

If we really want body cameras to work, there needs to be penalties for nonuse. For example lack of body camera removes qualified immunity protections for the

If we really want body cameras to work, there needs to be penalties for nonuse. For example lack of body camera removes qualified immunity protections for the officer(s) in question. My personal philosophy is that if called to be on a criminal jury, if the case relies on the officer's testimony and there is no camera, I will return a verdict of not guilty under the justification that the state has failed to prove its case. A couple of hung juries and the powers that be may get the message

sneak 6y ago
Juries, historically, uncritically accept unsubstantiated cop testimony at face value. It’s a huge problem.
- tylerfontaine 6y ago
  I sat as a juror in a murder trial several years ago. My peers accepted nearly every piece of prosecutorial testimony without question, not just cops. It was really eye-opening. Because even if that hadn't happened, the whole concept of lesser included charges meant the man on trial was almost certain to be guilty of something. If it wasn't Murder 1, it was murder 2, or manslaughter, or wreckless endangerment. In my case the guy was (as best I could conclude) legitimately guilty of one of the lesser included charges, but there was some dodgy testimony, and I was the only one, in my group, to question it, and suggest that it might have some bearing on which of the many charges that might actually make him guilty of. It took quite some convincing to get anyone else to drop to anything lower than the top charge. While I realize that this sample size of 1 is statistically insignificant, it really seems like if you wind up in court on criminal charges, odds seem to be you're screwed. "Innocent until proven guilty" felt, to me, like a pipedream.
  - michael1999 6y ago
    That's why a jury is so large, and conviction requires unanimity. Good for you. How many on your jury?
    - tylerfontaine 6y ago
      12 + 2 alternates. The trial itself took about 3 weeks.
      - michael1999 6y ago
        1 in 12 being open minded is pretty good odds. Good for you being the one.
- stevesearer 6y ago
  I was on a jury a number of years ago on a suspected DUI case where the police officer for the case failed to complete the proper paperwork and record of events at the time of arrest. As a jury we ended up deciding that the defendant was Not Guilty because without that filed paperwork, it was just two people's recollection of the events and we didn't feel the officer was more trustworthy. I wouldn't have thought much about it after the fact, except that the prosecution was visibly upset at the decision which made me realize that that was likely not what normally would have happened.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    > I wouldn't have thought much about it after the fact, except that the prosecution was visibly upset at the decision which made me realize that that was likely not what normally would have happened. I'm cynical enough about lawyers (having seen a few in action) that I wonder if "visibly upset" wasn't trying to manipulate someone - either the judge, or the jury members in case they serve on a jury again some day.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    This is actually not uncommon at all for DUI cases, usually because jurors can empathize with the defendant more than in other cases (often of similar socioeconomic background, race, etc. which is sometimes less common for other criminal trials). There's a reason that DUI defendants almost universally request jury trials.
dvtrn 6y ago
I will be legitimately shocked if lack of compliance with body cams is what results in stripping qualified immunity after years of so many other reasons where people have died on camera in police custody failed at doing so.
backtoyoujim 6y ago
What we need is for them to have to carry personally paid malpractice insurance that is tied to their access to qualified immunity. And if their camera is off they lose their insurance policy. Then no more access to qualified immunity. Being police is a luxury not a right.
- noodlesUK 6y ago
  We don’t need to create a private insurance market for yet another part of American life. Other countries have real oversight bodies with teeth that build public trust. It’s important that justice is done in these cases of abuse, and it also needs to be seen to be done by the public, which builds trust in the institutions of state.
  - seibelj 6y ago
    The point of insurance is they have to pay for it personally. If the government pays for insurance and also pays for penalties, we are in the same situation we are today.
    - syshum 6y ago
      Unions would never allow that, and I highly doubt people on HN will be in support for weakening Public employee unions which I think should be completely abolished //side note, FDR agreed.... which is ironic given that most people that support Public Employee unions think we need a new new deal FDR style
      - drdeca 6y ago
        why [strikethrough]would[/strikethrough] [edit:do] you think people here would oppose weakening (or abolishing) police unions?
  - brainfish 6y ago
    Regulatory capture is extremely common in American life, and many of our current policing issues can arguably be attributed in some large part to overly powerful police unions. So to me this sounds like a lip-service-non-solution waiting to happen.
pydry 6y ago
America desperately needs a national internal affairs department with an entirely separate reporting line whose boss answers directly to the president (or at least state governors). They could purchase, maintain the body cameras, collect and handle the footage and be trusted. If Biden is looking to score some points this would be a good way.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Isn't that one of the roles the FBI has?
  - pydry 6y ago
    As far as i know it's more or less handled by police forces themselves with predictable results.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      It's my understanding that the FBI is meant to handle matters of state or local government corruption, which I would think includes police departments that circle their wagons and protecting criminal cops. Probably they need to be doing a better job of it, but I believe they're meant to be (among other things) the organization you describe above. I'm not really familiar with the details, but it's my understanding the Seattle PD are under some sort of probation system with the DOJ, which I'm guessing the FBI was involved with. So I think this sort of thing does happen, though I guess not enough.
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > the FBI is meant to handle matters of state or local government corruption They have a certain amount of ability to do that if the state or local government is violating Federal law. But they do not have general oversight or police powers, since the Federal government as a whole does not. Nor is it supposed to.
        6y ago
pessimizer 6y ago
> A couple of hung juries and the powers that be may get the message A couple of hung juries and prosecutors will be sure to start asking this specific question in order to strike you from the jury. They already do this for the death penalty.
hvdfhbj 6y ago
Why is everyone busy inventing complicated penalties? If wearing a body camera is a requirement of the job then the penalty for not doing so should be the same as the penalty for not doing any other aspect of your job, you get fired.
- edkennedy 6y ago
  Cops rarely get fired, they get paid vacation.
akira2501 6y ago
> there needs to be penalties for nonuse. If they don't exceed the penalty for being caught in a particular instance of wrong doing, then it's not likely to be effective in those cases.. which are likely to be the most important of these cases. > A couple of hung juries and the powers that be may get the message DAs are elected. Let them know they shouldn't even bring these cases, or you're going to unseat them for even trying a single one. We shouldn't rely on the long tail of justice to save us here, we need protections at every level of the system. Peoples lives hang in the balance during a trial, why should we chance it?
Shivetya 6y ago
No, the fastest way to fix it is to invalidate any and all arrests and ticketing the officer performs while the camera is not functioning. Then publish when it occurs. Suddenly cameras will be everywhere. While you cannot remove QI you can probably get away with unpaid leave when an officer is under investigation but I expect that to eventually get overturned by union activity. Politically its radioactive, note the choices made on both sides for candidates and who got to speak at their relative conventions. If anything we will see increased funding for police with the typical wording to make it sound like we asked for it.

sneak 6y ago

Juries, historically, uncritically accept unsubstantiated cop testimony at face value. It’s a huge problem.

tylerfontaine 6y ago
I sat as a juror in a murder trial several years ago. My peers accepted nearly every piece of prosecutorial testimony without question, not just cops. It was really eye-opening. Because even if that hadn't happened, the whole concept of lesser included charges meant the man on trial was almost certain to be guilty of something. If it wasn't Murder 1, it was murder 2, or manslaughter, or wreckless endangerment. In my case the guy was (as best I could conclude) legitimately guilty of one of the lesser included charges, but there was some dodgy testimony, and I was the only one, in my group, to question it, and suggest that it might have some bearing on which of the many charges that might actually make him guilty of. It took quite some convincing to get anyone else to drop to anything lower than the top charge. While I realize that this sample size of 1 is statistically insignificant, it really seems like if you wind up in court on criminal charges, odds seem to be you're screwed. "Innocent until proven guilty" felt, to me, like a pipedream.
- michael1999 6y ago
  That's why a jury is so large, and conviction requires unanimity. Good for you. How many on your jury?
  - tylerfontaine 6y ago
    12 + 2 alternates. The trial itself took about 3 weeks.
    - michael1999 6y ago
      1 in 12 being open minded is pretty good odds. Good for you being the one.
stevesearer 6y ago
I was on a jury a number of years ago on a suspected DUI case where the police officer for the case failed to complete the proper paperwork and record of events at the time of arrest. As a jury we ended up deciding that the defendant was Not Guilty because without that filed paperwork, it was just two people's recollection of the events and we didn't feel the officer was more trustworthy. I wouldn't have thought much about it after the fact, except that the prosecution was visibly upset at the decision which made me realize that that was likely not what normally would have happened.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  > I wouldn't have thought much about it after the fact, except that the prosecution was visibly upset at the decision which made me realize that that was likely not what normally would have happened. I'm cynical enough about lawyers (having seen a few in action) that I wonder if "visibly upset" wasn't trying to manipulate someone - either the judge, or the jury members in case they serve on a jury again some day.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  This is actually not uncommon at all for DUI cases, usually because jurors can empathize with the defendant more than in other cases (often of similar socioeconomic background, race, etc. which is sometimes less common for other criminal trials). There's a reason that DUI defendants almost universally request jury trials.

dvtrn 6y ago

I will be legitimately shocked if lack of compliance with body cams is what results in stripping qualified immunity after years of so many other reasons where people have died on camera in police custody failed at doing so.

backtoyoujim 6y ago

What we need is for them to have to carry personally paid malpractice insurance that is tied to their access to qualified immunity. And if their camera is off they lose their insurance policy. Then no more access to qualified immunity. Being police is a luxury not a right.

noodlesUK 6y ago
We don’t need to create a private insurance market for yet another part of American life. Other countries have real oversight bodies with teeth that build public trust. It’s important that justice is done in these cases of abuse, and it also needs to be seen to be done by the public, which builds trust in the institutions of state.
- seibelj 6y ago
  The point of insurance is they have to pay for it personally. If the government pays for insurance and also pays for penalties, we are in the same situation we are today.
  - syshum 6y ago
    Unions would never allow that, and I highly doubt people on HN will be in support for weakening Public employee unions which I think should be completely abolished //side note, FDR agreed.... which is ironic given that most people that support Public Employee unions think we need a new new deal FDR style
    - drdeca 6y ago
      why [strikethrough]would[/strikethrough] [edit:do] you think people here would oppose weakening (or abolishing) police unions?
- brainfish 6y ago
  Regulatory capture is extremely common in American life, and many of our current policing issues can arguably be attributed in some large part to overly powerful police unions. So to me this sounds like a lip-service-non-solution waiting to happen.

pydry 6y ago

America desperately needs a national internal affairs department with an entirely separate reporting line whose boss answers directly to the president (or at least state governors). They could purchase, maintain the body cameras, collect and handle the footage and be trusted. If Biden is looking to score some points this would be a good way.

bigbubba 6y ago
Isn't that one of the roles the FBI has?
- pydry 6y ago
  As far as i know it's more or less handled by police forces themselves with predictable results.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    It's my understanding that the FBI is meant to handle matters of state or local government corruption, which I would think includes police departments that circle their wagons and protecting criminal cops. Probably they need to be doing a better job of it, but I believe they're meant to be (among other things) the organization you describe above. I'm not really familiar with the details, but it's my understanding the Seattle PD are under some sort of probation system with the DOJ, which I'm guessing the FBI was involved with. So I think this sort of thing does happen, though I guess not enough.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > the FBI is meant to handle matters of state or local government corruption They have a certain amount of ability to do that if the state or local government is violating Federal law. But they do not have general oversight or police powers, since the Federal government as a whole does not. Nor is it supposed to.
      - 6y ago

pessimizer 6y ago

> A couple of hung juries and the powers that be may get the message A couple of hung juries and prosecutors will be sure to start asking this specific question in order to strike you from the jury. They already do this for the death penalty.

hvdfhbj 6y ago

Why is everyone busy inventing complicated penalties? If wearing a body camera is a requirement of the job then the penalty for not doing so should be the same as the penalty for not doing any other aspect of your job, you get fired.

edkennedy 6y ago
Cops rarely get fired, they get paid vacation.

akira2501 6y ago

> there needs to be penalties for nonuse. If they don't exceed the penalty for being caught in a particular instance of wrong doing, then it's not likely to be effective in those cases.. which are likely to be the most important of these cases. > A couple of hung juries and the powers that be may get the message DAs are elected. Let them know they shouldn't even bring these cases, or you're going to unseat them for even trying a single one. We shouldn't rely on the long tail of justice to save us here, we need protections at every level of the system. Peoples lives hang in the balance during a trial, why should we chance it?

Shivetya 6y ago

No, the fastest way to fix it is to invalidate any and all arrests and ticketing the officer performs while the camera is not functioning. Then publish when it occurs. Suddenly cameras will be everywhere. While you cannot remove QI you can probably get away with unpaid leave when an officer is under investigation but I expect that to eventually get overturned by union activity. Politically its radioactive, note the choices made on both sides for candidates and who got to speak at their relative conventions. If anything we will see increased funding for police with the typical wording to make it sound like we asked for it.