3 ms·

> If its just the officer turning it off when entering a bathroom, all good Why? You can edit it out before publication.

by 6510 3y ago

sickofparadox 3y ago
Because police officers are people too and should not suffer the indignity of being recorded while conducting whatever business they need to in the bathroom. On top of the fact that other people could be in there and recording random people in the bathroom should not be allowed either.
- 6510 3y ago
  It seems harmless compared to the many indignities officers have to suffer. I'm curious what they think themselves. How much corruption or cocaine use would be acceptable to them? Would having the sound of your pee on recording some place be worse than having corrupt coworkers?
- _DeadFred_ 3y ago
  Do innocent people ever get stripped out, because that's a heck of an indignity too?
  - sickofparadox 3y ago
    I don't know what you specifically mean by stripped out, but police do subject people to illegal indignities. Those police officers are in the wrong and should be punished, but the logical punishment for that is not "record all officers in the bathroom".
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I could argue this either way, personally. It seems to me that we give cops extraordinary powers and it's not unreasonable to subject them to levels of scrutiny that would ordinarily be unacceptable, to guard against the abuse of those powers. Particularly since we clearly have a problem with too many cops abusing their power. On the other hand, going to the restroom is not likely to be a place where cops abuse their power (assuming they don't have someone in custody when they do, anyway. Cops do love their loopholes.)
jcrawfordor 3y ago
So this isn't an unsolvable problem but is part of the complexity of the current situation. In a lot of states, on body video has been determined by statute or case law to be public record. This means it is all subject to release if a member of a public makes a request. How much, if at all, the video can be trimmed or censored varies by jurisdiction. In some states police have latitude to edit video released, but the more common situation is that police departments are prohibited from any type of editing, in response to public records requests, unless they have a specific statutory authority to do so. The legislation to clear these situations up can be complicated and extremely difficult to get passed because of the differing interests involved. Complicating things further, police departments can usually do any editing or redaction they want on material they release voluntarily. Policy and union collective bargaining agreements may also restrict what information can be released to specific parties like internal affairs investigators. This all means that what is redacted vs left in, for the same incident, can depend on how the video was requested and by whom. Ironically, in states with public records laws, a random member of the public will often get the most complete version, more complete than what misconduct investigators are allowed to see.

> If its just the officer turning it off when entering a bathroom, all good Why? You can edit it out before publication.

by 6510 3y ago

> If its just the officer turning it off when entering a bathroom, all good Why? You can edit it out before publication.

sickofparadox 3y ago

Because police officers are people too and should not suffer the indignity of being recorded while conducting whatever business they need to in the bathroom. On top of the fact that other people could be in there and recording random people in the bathroom should not be allowed either.

6510 3y ago
It seems harmless compared to the many indignities officers have to suffer. I'm curious what they think themselves. How much corruption or cocaine use would be acceptable to them? Would having the sound of your pee on recording some place be worse than having corrupt coworkers?
_DeadFred_ 3y ago
Do innocent people ever get stripped out, because that's a heck of an indignity too?
- sickofparadox 3y ago
  I don't know what you specifically mean by stripped out, but police do subject people to illegal indignities. Those police officers are in the wrong and should be punished, but the logical punishment for that is not "record all officers in the bathroom".
JohnFen 3y ago
I could argue this either way, personally. It seems to me that we give cops extraordinary powers and it's not unreasonable to subject them to levels of scrutiny that would ordinarily be unacceptable, to guard against the abuse of those powers. Particularly since we clearly have a problem with too many cops abusing their power. On the other hand, going to the restroom is not likely to be a place where cops abuse their power (assuming they don't have someone in custody when they do, anyway. Cops do love their loopholes.)

jcrawfordor 3y ago

So this isn't an unsolvable problem but is part of the complexity of the current situation. In a lot of states, on body video has been determined by statute or case law to be public record. This means it is all subject to release if a member of a public makes a request. How much, if at all, the video can be trimmed or censored varies by jurisdiction. In some states police have latitude to edit video released, but the more common situation is that police departments are prohibited from any type of editing, in response to public records requests, unless they have a specific statutory authority to do so. The legislation to clear these situations up can be complicated and extremely difficult to get passed because of the differing interests involved. Complicating things further, police departments can usually do any editing or redaction they want on material they release voluntarily. Policy and union collective bargaining agreements may also restrict what information can be released to specific parties like internal affairs investigators. This all means that what is redacted vs left in, for the same incident, can depend on how the video was requested and by whom. Ironically, in states with public records laws, a random member of the public will often get the most complete version, more complete than what misconduct investigators are allowed to see.