5 ms·

I agree, but I don't think this obviates the need for regular citizens' videotaping the police. If surveillance is going to be omnipresent, I think it's crucial

by ambler0 13y ago

I agree, but I don't think this obviates the need for regular citizens' videotaping the police. If surveillance is going to be omnipresent, I think it's crucial that regular people are able to present their viewpoints as well. If we rely solely on the recordings that are produced by the powerful, it seems all too likely that things will be presented out of context, recordings will be 'lost', etc

avalaunch 13y ago
I would assume (read: hope) that both defense and prosecution would have access to the entire taped incident. And if the taping were lost that the benefit of doubt would go to the civilian, not the officer.
- sneak 13y ago
  Yeah because that's how it works now when a cop says one thing and an accused perp says another and there's no videotape. Please don't be naïve.
  - gamblor956 13y ago
    The difference is that if there was supposed to be a video, and the video went missing while in the sole custody of the police, it is a reasonable inference that the video went missing because it supports the defendant's version of events rather than the police version. Indeed--this is a standard evidentiary rule (and jury instruction) in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. In a criminal case, it would be enough to throw out the case, with prejudice. In a civil case, the judge would even be within his authority to issue a finding of fact against the party that "lost" the video.
  - r00fus 13y ago
    The lack of tape needs to be large suspicion factor. Example: when Nixon couldn't explain the "missing 18 minutes" of tape [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_White_House_tapes#The_18.C2.BD_minute_gap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_White_House_tapes#The_18....
thangalin 13y ago
Also, having a second recording reduces the possibility of video tampering. ("The video clearly shows the perp had a gun.") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4obTZV2QEM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4obTZV2QEM (jump to 1:33)

by ambler0 13y ago

avalaunch 13y ago

I would assume (read: hope) that both defense and prosecution would have access to the entire taped incident. And if the taping were lost that the benefit of doubt would go to the civilian, not the officer.

sneak 13y ago
Yeah because that's how it works now when a cop says one thing and an accused perp says another and there's no videotape. Please don't be naïve.
- gamblor956 13y ago
  The difference is that if there was supposed to be a video, and the video went missing while in the sole custody of the police, it is a reasonable inference that the video went missing because it supports the defendant's version of events rather than the police version. Indeed--this is a standard evidentiary rule (and jury instruction) in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. In a criminal case, it would be enough to throw out the case, with prejudice. In a civil case, the judge would even be within his authority to issue a finding of fact against the party that "lost" the video.
- r00fus 13y ago
  The lack of tape needs to be large suspicion factor. Example: when Nixon couldn't explain the "missing 18 minutes" of tape [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_White_House_tapes#The_18.C2.BD_minute_gap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_White_House_tapes#The_18....

thangalin 13y ago

Also, having a second recording reduces the possibility of video tampering. ("The video clearly shows the perp had a gun.") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4obTZV2QEM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4obTZV2QEM (jump to 1:33)