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

by 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
      It's a fact of our justice system (and indeed any reasonable justice system) that if you murder somebody but there isn't any way to prove it, you go free.
  - Evolved 11y ago
    The absence of evidence is not the evidence of deliberate tampering. The tech is not flawless and this kind of outcome is really not fair to either side. The camera only shows 1 point of view and if for X reasons it is used to judge the officer or the civilian as the overwhelming evidence then it can have severe consequences for either or both sides if it does work or does not work. Example: civilian makes grandiose claim that is untrue and that cannot be refuted due to the camera malfunctioning. Officer is punished. Example: civilian makes legit claim that cannot be proven due to camera malfunctioning. Officer successfully convinced court that camera failed to work and it's nonfunctionality was not preventable due to outside circumstances. Officer is not punished and civilian does not receive justice. Etc.
sooheon 11y ago
How many cases have there been of the police taking lives of civilians who were in the right and can prove it but were given no chance? How many time does evidence and video have to be conveniently "misplaced"?
- Evolved 11y ago
  Likewise how many cases were there where civilians filed complaints against officers which ultimately led to demotions, terminations, otherwise good cops not being able to get promoted, etc. I'm completely 100% for the body cameras and for transparency but I also understand that they shouldn't be the only evidence used to decide guilt or innocence and should not hold more weight over other pieces of evidence.
sciguy77 11y ago
> 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. Wait, how exactly is the cop's life ruined?
Evolved 11y ago
I should have clarified I'm assuming worst case scenario where a cop shoots a civilian and kills them. The camera malfunctioned so the cop couldn't prove that for X reasons the civilian was a deadly threat then the cop is charged with murder and automatically convicted due to the video evidence not being there to support their claim and due to the civilian automatically winning due to the previous poster's proposition.

by Evolved 11y ago

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
    It's a fact of our justice system (and indeed any reasonable justice system) that if you murder somebody but there isn't any way to prove it, you go free.
- Evolved 11y ago
  The absence of evidence is not the evidence of deliberate tampering. The tech is not flawless and this kind of outcome is really not fair to either side. The camera only shows 1 point of view and if for X reasons it is used to judge the officer or the civilian as the overwhelming evidence then it can have severe consequences for either or both sides if it does work or does not work. Example: civilian makes grandiose claim that is untrue and that cannot be refuted due to the camera malfunctioning. Officer is punished. Example: civilian makes legit claim that cannot be proven due to camera malfunctioning. Officer successfully convinced court that camera failed to work and it's nonfunctionality was not preventable due to outside circumstances. Officer is not punished and civilian does not receive justice. Etc.

sooheon 11y ago

How many cases have there been of the police taking lives of civilians who were in the right and can prove it but were given no chance? How many time does evidence and video have to be conveniently "misplaced"?

Evolved 11y ago
Likewise how many cases were there where civilians filed complaints against officers which ultimately led to demotions, terminations, otherwise good cops not being able to get promoted, etc. I'm completely 100% for the body cameras and for transparency but I also understand that they shouldn't be the only evidence used to decide guilt or innocence and should not hold more weight over other pieces of evidence.

sciguy77 11y ago

> 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. Wait, how exactly is the cop's life ruined?

Evolved 11y ago

I should have clarified I'm assuming worst case scenario where a cop shoots a civilian and kills them. The camera malfunctioned so the cop couldn't prove that for X reasons the civilian was a deadly threat then the cop is charged with murder and automatically convicted due to the video evidence not being there to support their claim and due to the civilian automatically winning due to the previous poster's proposition.