8 ms·

> He added that the LAPD said no video footage of the training exercise exists, even though these sorts of trainings are often recorded. That seems like standa

• Arrath 4y ago
  Time to start prorating individual officer's salary for the % of their shift time that has extant video footage? These body cams are useless if the video can go conveniently missing whenever it needs to.
  • hanniabu 4y ago
    Won't change a thing, they'd happily be paid 8hrs less if it means not going to jail
    • wahnfrieden 4y ago
      It would have the same effect as this early american law: > There was little doubt that fence cutting would be criminalized, but what was to be done about ranchers who were fencing over public roads and lands? Here the Texas Legislature stood with the rich, making fence cutting a felony punishable by two to five years in prison, while for the cattle barons who encroached on public land, the punishment was a misdemeanor and a small fine of $10 to $100. ie levying a slight tax to enable it rampantly through surface-level law and order
  • edgyquant 4y ago
    Nope time to throw cops and their supervisors in jail who lose or forget to record footage
    • rightbyte 4y ago
      Fun times when your body cam breaks. Just upload the video automatically to some central server. Then the corruption on police station level can't get to it. You could do the upload via mobile network if a "bang" is heard too.
  • noboostforyou 4y ago
    Get rid of Qualified Immunity for starters. Next should be some sort of malpractice insurance that police must carry themselves (none of this using our tax dollars to pay for their own crimes).
    • rootusrootus 4y ago
      Although it gets misused, there is a very good reason for qualified immunity. Get rid of it and nobody will ever become a cop. And even if you could find people, you'd have to pay a pretty ridiculous salary, especially with an insurance requirement. Better to reform the official checks & balances on police power so they are more effective.
      • ROTMetro 4y ago
        Checks and balances don't work. Just look at the whole student debt issue. Someone sued and the Biden administration changed the rule so that the person suing no longer had standing, taking away access to the courts. Trying to sue the government from inside the prison system is just naive. And even when it works, it doesn't work. We sued because we were housed in inhuman conditions. Because only inmates in one wing of the prison sued, the ruling only applied to inmates housed in that wing, even though the rest of the prison was exactly the same as what the Court had just ruled inhumane and unconstitutional. Qualified immunity is a made up right by the courts (it doesn't exist in law) and places SOME animals above other animals when it comes to accountability. I thought we were all equal? All Americans should be responsible for their actions, government employees > accountability simply because they have a special 'job' should not be a thing.
        • joshuamorton 4y ago
          > Checks and balances don't work. Just look at the whole student debt issue. Someone sued and the Biden administration changed the rule so that the person suing no longer had standing, taking away access to the courts. This is because the standing they had was tenuous to begin with, his claim was that the issue was he'd be taxed on the 20K in cancelled debt and couldn't opt out. So it was clarified that he could, and suddenly he is no longer harmed. You don't have standing to sue if you aren't harmed. Student loan companies have a somewhat less tenuous argument, but the real issue is that Biden's actions were probably legal, and checks and balances don't exist to prevent the government from doing legal things.
  • bee_rider 4y ago
    Judges should start instructing juries make an adverse inference against the police, if bodycam footage is missing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference
    • hutzlibu 4y ago
      Yes and they likely will - but only in jurisdictions, where bodycams are mandatory to be always on.
  • Tangurena2 4y ago
    Losing insurance is making a number of police departments actually make changes: > Even departments with few problems are experiencing rate increases of 30 to 100 percent. Now, insurers also are telling departments that they must change the way they police. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/police-misconduct-insurance-settlements-reform/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/20...
    • midoridensha 4y ago
      It's pretty bad when you have to rely on greedy capitalists and not public servants for positive change.
      • zhengyi13 4y ago
        Hey look, the market fixes everything! (/s)
  • orwin 4y ago
    One thing i absolutely love and that police officers were not always aware off, is that initially their bodycam were always recording, and keeping the video they just recorded in a buffer (sadly, not often with audio). The buffer can change, but is a minimum of 30 second to up to 15 minutes, and some cops were busted by that. Now more often than not the configuration is 30s, so tape goes missing at a lower rate. I think their is another kind, used more in cities, with bodycam uploading the video directly, with 3 modes (low-res, lowframe, low-res, normal framerate + audio, and high res high framerate).
  • dirkg 4y ago
    Theres no way any police reform will hapen as long as we have unions and qualified immunity
• Hnrobert42 4y ago
  Or…no footage exists.
  • evan_ 4y ago
    if there was supposed to be video and there isn't... I don't know what you think your argument is exactly
    • MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > if there was supposed to be video and there isn't... You're assuming that malice is the reason why there isn't video footage if there was supposed to be. I think that's a fair assumption, and I think that this is most likely the case. But it's not necessarily the case. It is possible that negligence or incompetence is the reason the cameras weren't recording. The whole thing sounds like a murder to me, and I assume the video footage was deliberately disabled/destroyed/lost/etc. But at this stage I don't think anybody can be certain of that. There is only circumstantial evidence for somebody preventing/destroying the video footage.
      • inetknght 4y ago
        > You're assuming that malice is the reason why there isn't video footage if there was supposed to be There doesn't have to be malice. There has to be accountability.
        • MichaelCollins 4y ago
          I share your desire for accountability, but I don't think that's what this remark was about: > "When something happens, conveniently the video footage that should exist, magically doesn't." Magic doesn't exist. When something is said to "magically" not exist, that is a sarcastic way of saying that somebody deliberately made it not exist. I believe that is the most likely explanation, but it's not necessarily true.
          • 4y ago
• Rebelgecko 4y ago
  >When something happens, conveniently the video footage that should exist, magically doesn't. IMO LAPD is actually pretty good about using body cams when they're supposed to. Way better than LASD and other law enforcement agencies in the area. In California they're required to release footage (if it exists) after every OIS (officer involved shooting) or LERI (law enforcement something injury, like if a cop hurts someone without shooting them via tazing/dog/baton/bean bag/punches). If you look at their Youtube channel [1] pretty much every OIS and LERI video does have body cam and/or dashcam footage. The events that don't are mostly compliant with their policy (although it sounds like their policy should be amended to include training activities. Both for safety and to make the training more realistic). When I looked at a sampling of 30 LAPD incidents, 28 of them had body cam footage recording during the incident. The two that didn't involved off-duty officers[2] [1]: https://www.youtube.com/c/LAPDONLINE1/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/LAPDONLINE1/videos [2]: Here's the videos if you want to see for yourself, but FYI the first one shows some unpleasant aftermath: Attempted car theft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgESIr-MIUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgESIr-MIUg Cop shoots at someone after a drive-by on his neighbor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXWJIX2rL4Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXWJIX2rL4Y
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • ouid 4y ago
    being good at using bodycams is damning if there is no footage.
    • Rebelgecko 4y ago
      I don't follow, or maybe I was unclear. I think LAPD is good about following their body cam policy in situations where they're required to use body cams (like when driving around town). Even in cases where the video makes LAPD look criminally bad (like the situation a year or two ago where a cop beat someone up in Boyle Heights for calling him names), the video doesn't "go missing" or "experience file corruption" or anything like that. However that doesn't imply anything about situations where they aren't required to use body cams.
• bawolff 4y ago
  Seems like an easy solution would be auto update to cloud account controlled by a different group.
  • piva00 4y ago
    You have basically described part of the mandate of an independent review board/commission. Any civilised police force should have one.
• heavyset_go 4y ago
  Body camera systems are not sold to police departments as devices that are meant to keep cops honest, they're sold to police departments as devices that will keep the lying public honest and thus keep cops out of court and prison. They're meant for cops to turn them on when they feel like they need evidence against whoever they're detaining, arresting or otherwise dealing with. In this case, video surveillance was working as intended.
  • therealdrag0 4y ago
    Well they’re sold to whoever will buy them. While what is recorded depends on department policy which can vary, but clearly could be improved and of course if the policy is not enforced that’s another big problem.
  • jcrawfordor 4y ago
    Your argument is not necessarily incorrect, but I do think it's important to understand that this attitude depends a lot on the specific implementation. In some police departments, there is a requirement that body camera (OBRD, BWC, different departments like to use different terms) footage be uploaded after every call for service or reported incident, officers are audited against this requirement, and missing footage is an infraction subject to suspension without pay. In some departments, there is no policy at all, and no interest in creating one. The biggest vendor, Axon, has a fairly well-designed system for video management where the auditing system makes it fairly easy to determine whether or not footage exists and why (e.g. cameras log all deletion of footage e.g. due to full storage and report it at the next upload, the management system reports on cameras that have not uploaded for more than two shifts, video once uploaded cannot be deleted until the end of routine retention even if not associated with any incident). This is not to portray Axon as a saint, because there are questions about the auditability of their evidence.com product specifically when it comes to preparation of video footage for court or public release, and this can be a material problem. But it also makes it even more troubling that some departments, district attorneys, etc. make no effort to use the auditability features that exist, or routinely accept sketchy excuses that are not consistent with the audit record.
    • 4y ago