5 ms·

"One example where the U.S. seems to be getting it right is high-speed chases" If true, that may be because they are usually video recorded by news channels. I

Evolved 11y ago
"One example where the U.S. seems to be getting it right is high-speed chases" If true, that may be because they are usually video recorded by news channels. If a civilian is injured during the chase, there's lots of dramatic footage for the prosecution lawyer to show the jury, before asking the officers in charge to answer under oath why they made the decisions they made. Sounds like pretty strong evidence in favor of mandatory police body-worn cameras, along with a right of citizens who are on the receiving end of a police encounter to obtain and review the footage. There's always the worry that the camera would be 'accidentally' turned off by the police, or that the footage would be lost if it showed anything embarrassing to the police, so to make them effective, you probably need a change in the law such that any discrepancy between the officer's version of events and the citizens is AUTOMATICALLY decided by judge/ jury in favor of the citizen if the 'mandatory' video footage is for some reason unavailable. I don't think automatically ruling in the civilian's favor is a good idea because as we all know, tech breaks sometimes. I'm quite certain the body cameras exceed the standard definition of durable goods but they, like any other complex electronics, are susceptible to shock, moisture, fatigue, etc. and can break. All it takes is a landmark case of cop vs. civilian where the camera legitimately broke but the cop was in the right yet cannot prove it and then their life is ruined if the case is automatically decided in the civilian's favor.
- juliangregorian 11y ago
  Why would the cop's life be ruined? There are already way too many cases where police body cameras "mysteriously malfunction", often on multiple officers at once. There need to be repercussions for such behavior. This is just an extension of innocent until proven guilty. If cops want to make arrests, they should make sure their camera is working. They would never go out without a functioning gun, radio, or car.
- Programmatic 11y ago
  All it takes is a landmark case of cop vs. civilian where the camera legitimately broke but the cop was in the right yet cannot prove it and then their life is ruined if the case is automatically decided in the civilian's favor. I think there's a middle ground somewhere between "toss the case because the bodycam footage went missing" and "lock up the cop and throw away the key"
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Judge each person's criminal case on their own merits. If neither the civilian nor the cop can be proven to have committed a crime, they should both go free. Civil cases, on the other hand, merely need to meet the standard of "a preponderance of evidence" to support the claim. A mysteriously malfunctioning camera ought to meet that standard, and thus be grounds for an award of damages due to misconduct. This cost will be borne by the police department (and thus the government it belongs to, and thus the public of that area) rather than by the individual officer. This will help encourage the department to keep their stuff in good working order and make sure their staff aren't deliberately disabling the cameras.
    - mistermann 11y ago
      > If neither the civilian nor the cop can be proven to have committed a crime, they should both go free. This won't help much if the citizen is dead.
      - mikeash 11y ago
dllthomas 11y ago
While I favor body cameras, I don't think your reasoning here holds up. Even if we assume cops only favor their own safety and power, we would expect to see this policy around high speed chases - they are dangerous for the cops as well.
- ghufran_syed 11y ago
  "They are dangerous for the cops as well" - That's true..but hasn't it always been true? Car speeds haven't meaningfully changed in the last 40-50 years, so it's likely that the danger to civilians and police hasn't particularly changed either. So, if it's true that police agencies are encouraging less dangerous means of achieving the same ends, why now and not before? The change suggests some other factor, and my supposition is that widespread video footage of these chases may have played a role.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    Eh, maybe. I think decisions need less explanation when they're the right one. Why now? Maybe they just figured it out. Hanlon's razer, &c. If we need to explain "why now", that's still a question with your hypothesis - high speed chases have been dangerous for a long time, but they have also regularly been filmed for some while now.

Evolved 11y ago

"One example where the U.S. seems to be getting it right is high-speed chases" If true, that may be because they are usually video recorded by news channels. If a civilian is injured during the chase, there's lots of dramatic footage for the prosecution lawyer to show the jury, before asking the officers in charge to answer under oath why they made the decisions they made. Sounds like pretty strong evidence in favor of mandatory police body-worn cameras, along with a right of citizens who are on the receiving end of a police encounter to obtain and review the footage. There's always the worry that the camera would be 'accidentally' turned off by the police, or that the footage would be lost if it showed anything embarrassing to the police, so to make them effective, you probably need a change in the law such that any discrepancy between the officer's version of events and the citizens is AUTOMATICALLY decided by judge/ jury in favor of the citizen if the 'mandatory' video footage is for some reason unavailable. I don't think automatically ruling in the civilian's favor is a good idea because as we all know, tech breaks sometimes. I'm quite certain the body cameras exceed the standard definition of durable goods but they, like any other complex electronics, are susceptible to shock, moisture, fatigue, etc. and can break. All it takes is a landmark case of cop vs. civilian where the camera legitimately broke but the cop was in the right yet cannot prove it and then their life is ruined if the case is automatically decided in the civilian's favor.

juliangregorian 11y ago
Why would the cop's life be ruined? There are already way too many cases where police body cameras "mysteriously malfunction", often on multiple officers at once. There need to be repercussions for such behavior. This is just an extension of innocent until proven guilty. If cops want to make arrests, they should make sure their camera is working. They would never go out without a functioning gun, radio, or car.
Programmatic 11y ago
All it takes is a landmark case of cop vs. civilian where the camera legitimately broke but the cop was in the right yet cannot prove it and then their life is ruined if the case is automatically decided in the civilian's favor. I think there's a middle ground somewhere between "toss the case because the bodycam footage went missing" and "lock up the cop and throw away the key"
- mikeash 11y ago
  Judge each person's criminal case on their own merits. If neither the civilian nor the cop can be proven to have committed a crime, they should both go free. Civil cases, on the other hand, merely need to meet the standard of "a preponderance of evidence" to support the claim. A mysteriously malfunctioning camera ought to meet that standard, and thus be grounds for an award of damages due to misconduct. This cost will be borne by the police department (and thus the government it belongs to, and thus the public of that area) rather than by the individual officer. This will help encourage the department to keep their stuff in good working order and make sure their staff aren't deliberately disabling the cameras.
  - mistermann 11y ago
    > If neither the civilian nor the cop can be proven to have committed a crime, they should both go free. This won't help much if the citizen is dead.
    - mikeash 11y ago

dllthomas 11y ago

While I favor body cameras, I don't think your reasoning here holds up. Even if we assume cops only favor their own safety and power, we would expect to see this policy around high speed chases - they are dangerous for the cops as well.

ghufran_syed 11y ago
"They are dangerous for the cops as well" - That's true..but hasn't it always been true? Car speeds haven't meaningfully changed in the last 40-50 years, so it's likely that the danger to civilians and police hasn't particularly changed either. So, if it's true that police agencies are encouraging less dangerous means of achieving the same ends, why now and not before? The change suggests some other factor, and my supposition is that widespread video footage of these chases may have played a role.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  Eh, maybe. I think decisions need less explanation when they're the right one. Why now? Maybe they just figured it out. Hanlon's razer, &c. If we need to explain "why now", that's still a question with your hypothesis - high speed chases have been dangerous for a long time, but they have also regularly been filmed for some while now.