ProPublica Argues US Police 'Have Undermined the Promise of Body Cameras' (propublica.org) 96
A new investigation from ProPublica argues that in the U.S., "Hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars have been spent on what was sold as a revolution in transparency and accountability.
"Instead, police departments routinely refuse to release footage..." The technology represented the largest new investment in policing in a generation. Yet without deeper changes, it was a fix bound to fall far short of those hopes. In every city, the police ostensibly report to mayors and other elected officials. But in practice, they have been given wide latitude to run their departments as they wish and to police — and protect — themselves. And so as policymakers rushed to equip the police with cameras, they often failed to grapple with a fundamental question: Who would control the footage?
Instead, they defaulted to leaving police departments, including New York's, with the power to decide what is recorded, who can see it and when. In turn, departments across the country have routinely delayed releasing footage, released only partial or redacted video or refused to release it at all. They have frequently failed to discipline or fire officers when body cameras document abuse and have kept footage from the agencies charged with investigating police misconduct. Even when departments have stated policies of transparency, they don't always follow them. Three years ago, after George Floyd's killing by Minneapolis police officers and amid a wave of protests against police violence, the New York Police Department said it would publish footage of so-called critical incidents "within 30 days." There have been 380 such incidents since then. The department has released footage within a month just twice.
And the department often does not release video at all. There have been 28 shootings of civilians this year by New York officers (through the first week of December). The department has released footage in just seven of these cases (also through the first week of December) and has not done so in any of the last 16.... For a snapshot of disclosure practices across the country, we conducted a review of civilians killed by police officers in June 2022, roughly a decade after the first body cameras were rolled out. We counted 79 killings in which there was body-worn-camera footage. A year and a half later, the police have released footage in just 33 cases — or about 42%.
The reporting reveals that without further intervention from city, state and federal officials and lawmakers, body cameras may do more to serve police interests than those of the public they are sworn to protect... The pattern has become so common across the country — public talk of transparency followed by a deliberate undermining of the stated goal — that the policing-oversight expert Hans Menos, who led Philadelphia's civilian police-oversight board until 2020, coined a term for it: the "body-cam head fake."
The article includes examples where when footage was ultimately released, it contradicted initial police accounts.
In one instance, past footage of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin "was left in the control of a department where impunity reigned..." the article points out, adding that Minneapolis "fought against releasing the videos, even after Chauvin pleaded guilty in December 2021 to federal civil rights violations."
"Instead, police departments routinely refuse to release footage..." The technology represented the largest new investment in policing in a generation. Yet without deeper changes, it was a fix bound to fall far short of those hopes. In every city, the police ostensibly report to mayors and other elected officials. But in practice, they have been given wide latitude to run their departments as they wish and to police — and protect — themselves. And so as policymakers rushed to equip the police with cameras, they often failed to grapple with a fundamental question: Who would control the footage?
Instead, they defaulted to leaving police departments, including New York's, with the power to decide what is recorded, who can see it and when. In turn, departments across the country have routinely delayed releasing footage, released only partial or redacted video or refused to release it at all. They have frequently failed to discipline or fire officers when body cameras document abuse and have kept footage from the agencies charged with investigating police misconduct. Even when departments have stated policies of transparency, they don't always follow them. Three years ago, after George Floyd's killing by Minneapolis police officers and amid a wave of protests against police violence, the New York Police Department said it would publish footage of so-called critical incidents "within 30 days." There have been 380 such incidents since then. The department has released footage within a month just twice.
And the department often does not release video at all. There have been 28 shootings of civilians this year by New York officers (through the first week of December). The department has released footage in just seven of these cases (also through the first week of December) and has not done so in any of the last 16.... For a snapshot of disclosure practices across the country, we conducted a review of civilians killed by police officers in June 2022, roughly a decade after the first body cameras were rolled out. We counted 79 killings in which there was body-worn-camera footage. A year and a half later, the police have released footage in just 33 cases — or about 42%.
The reporting reveals that without further intervention from city, state and federal officials and lawmakers, body cameras may do more to serve police interests than those of the public they are sworn to protect... The pattern has become so common across the country — public talk of transparency followed by a deliberate undermining of the stated goal — that the policing-oversight expert Hans Menos, who led Philadelphia's civilian police-oversight board until 2020, coined a term for it: the "body-cam head fake."
The article includes examples where when footage was ultimately released, it contradicted initial police accounts.
In one instance, past footage of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin "was left in the control of a department where impunity reigned..." the article points out, adding that Minneapolis "fought against releasing the videos, even after Chauvin pleaded guilty in December 2021 to federal civil rights violations."
A Title (Score:2)
It's hard to be optimistic these days...
Wish I was a judge (Score:5, Interesting)
Any case where the police "lose" footage or everyone's camera mysteriously malfunctions gets an automatic dismissal.
Re:Wish I was a judge (Score:5, Interesting)
Nah, make it a destruction of evidence charge. Something that would prevent the officer from ever serving in a position of public trust ever again.
Re:Wish I was a judge (Score:5, Informative)
Legislators are afraid to go after the police
The DOJ has recently refused to let the Phoenix city council see any of the drafts of their (most recent) investigation of the Phoenix Police Department, likely because the city government and police department have been acting in concert
imo, the police departments of most large cities act like gangs and can be trusted even less
i.e. San Jose police union exec charged with attempt to import, sell valeryl fentanyl, officials say [abc7news.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Legislators are afraid to go after the police
Obviously. And that is when the law stops about being right and wrong and is purely about power.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You are describing the situation in a totalitarian state. Do you think the US is a totalitarian state?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that stance, you are right, of course. I do not agree to it. I think the law is just a tool, neither bad not good, that can be used in good and bad ways. I do agree that the trend currently in much of the western world is towards totalitarianism, because that is what right-wing no-conscience assholes use to promise they have all the right answers and solutions and will make the world so massively better. At the same time, too many people do not get what totalitarianism actually means for most peopl
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
the police departments of most large cities act like gangs
Often, the gangs and the police work together. Gangs recruit cops onto their payroll but will also send a brother or cousin to the police academy.
That's why the Feds don't trust local cops. Any information they share about a drug investigation is immediately leaked.
Re:Wish I was a judge (Score:4, Insightful)
Any case where the police "lose" footage or everyone's camera mysteriously malfunctions gets an automatic dismissal.
How about being a mayor?
"Sorry, our treasury department lost your department's funding cheques to the same place your bodycam footage went. Pretty sure if you find that footage our citizens are entitled to, your funding will show up too. Let's see how good you guys really are at investigating things."
Mayors and council don't have the power? Throw that question on the next municipal ballot. Watch the citizens grant the authority to withhold payment when the police department doesn't do what they're told. Then maybe for bonus entertainment, issue the order, "stop shooting people."
Re: (Score:2)
Watch the citizens grant the authority to withhold payment when the police department doesn't do what they're told.
I doubt their union contract allow that.
Re: (Score:2)
Contracts are secondary to the law, and cannot require illegal activity.
So pass the law that the city/county/etc. is *required* to withhold payment when the department is not in compliance and force the contract to be either changed or voided.
Re: (Score:2)
Contracts can easily be written to make the alternative damagin, absurd, impractical, and/or expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't hire them under those terms.
If you won't work without free reign to function as a criminal gang, we're better off without you.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have much of a chance when they have a public union.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you do. your not doing tyour job as required by law. You're fired.
You want your job back? Sign up with the new contract, or take a hike.
Cities, etc. are not actually required to comply with union demands - and if the union is committed to maintaining police officers role as criminal thugs then the public is better off if the city fires them all and starts fresh.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that if they withhold wages, their contract may have consequences, and if a union negotiated it, those consequences may be the city no longer has a police force.
Re: (Score:2)
If the police force is committed to being criminals, that sounds like an improvement.
Re: (Score:3)
"Throw that question on the next municipal ballot. Watch the citizens grant the authority to withhold payment when the police department doesn't do what they're told."
Watch the political ads yelling about how the law will destroy the police department and leave citizens entirely at the mercy of criminals. Watch the ballot go down in a massive defeat. That's how this sort of thing always goes.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only should the charges be dismisses against the defendant, the people in charge of the archive should be dismissed from their jobs, since they are clearly incompetent.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, what should happen is what happened with all this other camera cloud nonsense.
Every camera streams in real time (maybe at 480p30) over the cellular network, and if the stream is interrupted the cloud service marks a point in the video stream where the video or audio is missing. It real-time transcribes what it hears.
The public, at any point can view these videos in real time. When the police officer puts their camera into the system that archives video, the higher resolution footage and audio is sent t
I know its unlikely (Score:3)
I know its unlikely, but I would suggest the proper level of footage be at all times the officer is doing something with their police authority, so including off duty or rented cop activities.
Failing to do so being treated as a crime tantamount to destruction of evidence, with the officer during duty hours not able to mute or disable the device at any time for any reason. The department can work out what to redact as far as private information or time spent in the toilet or what have you.
That and establish a national standard for access to body and dash cam footage with timers in place before the footage automatically becomes accessible to the public. This would be to revent rogue departments from stonewalling legitimate access, especially in cases where the footage might out an officer who's an exigent threat to the community with their actions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is the things, as "sworn officers" the testimony of police is given more weight than any other individual in courts of law
Taking that away from them, in any degree or fashion, will result in a unholy shit storm of self-righteous indignation that will see abandoning any cams in a wholesale manner
The problem is much bigger than anybody in power wants to admit
Re: (Score:2)
Testimony [Re:I know its unlikely] (Score:2)
Here is the things, as "sworn officers" the testimony of police is given more weight than any other individual in courts of law.
Proof trumps testimony, no ?
As a first step, any police officer who gives an account (under oath or not) that is later shown by bodycam or other surveillance footage to be false, should be laid off immediately.
If they have been shown to be untruthful once, you can't allow them to testify in court.
Re: (Score:2)
The Brady List [giglio-bradylist.com] is supposed to do exactly that
However, Hundreds of police officers have been labeled liars. Some still help send people to prison. Across the USA, prosecutors aren't tracking officer misconduct, skirting Supreme Court "Brady" rules and sometimes leading to wrongful convictions. [usatoday.com]
Re: I know its unlikely (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah maybe we shouldn't allow police unions to negotiate in bad faith using the safery of citizens as a bargaining chip.
Nice idea. How do you propose implementing that?
Re:I know its unlikely (Score:4, Insightful)
Failing to do so being treated as a crime tantamount to destruction of evidence
But no State implements that and no State is looking to implement such. Mostly because no one will want to be a cop if something as simple as failing to turn on a camera amounts to a crime. Cops aren't technical support, they are law enforcement officers and that's what they have to focus on. No State wants setup a law enforcement program that detracts from the stated job. Mostly because Police Unions would be allowed to haul the State into negotiations under Federal labor law and take the piss out of the State attempting to implement such. But that said, say you have a box that just "always records". Like you said:
with the officer during duty hours not able to mute or disable the device at any time for any reason. The department can work out what to redact as far as private information or time spent in the toilet or what have you.
Yeah, that's a violation of privacy. There's zero ways that is constitutional and every Police Union would file suit until the heat death of the universe. There are zero ways an always on camera that does what you indicate would ever fly in the United States.
a national standard for access to body and dash cam footage
They cannot. Congress would have to first create a program for such and that program would have to be opt-in not opt-out. Congress can attach some nice money to entice States to implement the standard, but Congress can absolutely NOT ENFORCE IT. States have rights as well and how a State implements police force is well within those State rights.
with timers in place before the footage automatically becomes accessible to the public
That's a violation of the 4th (a judge is required for release, it cannot be a technical timer), 5th (litigants have the right to not have their actions enter the public until they are guilty [innocent until proven guilty, remember?]), 10th (States have ultimately authority over actual requirements), and the 14th Amendment (all of this is complete violation of due process). Absolutely you cannot do these things. Again, States have rights. The litigants of a crime have rights. Court procedure is permitted on the basis of grants by *the State*, unless we're talking about Federal courts, which we're not.
This would be to revent rogue departments from stonewalling legitimate access, especially in cases where the footage might out an officer who's an exigent threat to the community with their actions
And I'm all for requiring transparency in police departments. But most of what you've stated is not remotely legal in this country. And the parts that "might" be implemented will require the various States, not the Federal government, to chime in and the odds of getting it implemented are very long. I get they are civil servants and thus they should have a level of transparency. I don't deny that. But they are also humans with rights. The problem with technical solutions are they attempt to circumvent the Judiciary which you cannot. The whole timer thing, that's a no-go out the box because only a Judge can really make that call, you cannot put that kind of thing on a timer. Everyone who was recorded has a 5th amendment right that you cannot circumvent without a Judge indicating explicitly why that is.
This is one of those things, people need to stop going to DC for answers and they need to head over to their State Capitol for answers. That is the BEST place for a solution to this problem. Or at least as a start. Going to Washington DC is the worst way to try and solve this. And putting technical triggers that fire off no matter what violates so many various laws, court procedures, and basic human rights.
Re: (Score:1)
Then the only alternative is all citizens should wear the Meta Ray-Ban Smart Glasses set to livestream 24/7. Except when committing a crime obviously
Re: (Score:2)
Then the only alternative is all citizens should wear the Meta Ray-Ban Smart Glasses set to livestream 24/7. Except when committing a crime obviously
Then the cops would counter by donning Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.
Re: (Score:1)
Failing to do so being treated as a crime tantamount to destruction of evidence
But no State implements that and no State is looking to implement such. Mostly because no one will want to be a cop if something as simple as failing to turn on a camera amounts to a crime.
Sure they will. Just make it so that you can't fail to turn it on.
with the officer during duty hours not able to mute or disable the device at any time for any reason. The department can work out what to redact as far as private information or time spent in the toilet or what have you.
Yeah, that's a violation of privacy. There's zero ways that is constitutional and every Police Union would file suit until the heat death of the universe. There are zero ways an always on camera that does what you indicate would ever fly in the United States.
Not necessarily. At lea
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't really going to comment here because we're starting to head into territory that's way more than I want to type in a day. But this point.
Congress could pass a law that shifts the federal presumption of guilt or innocence in a manner that would make officers beg to join such a program, though, or remove all federal funding, including grants, for law enforcement in any state that doesn't comply, or both.
gave me a laugh and I wanted to tell you why. Congress can barely agree to lunch. The level of complexity of such a bill that you are pitching because there's all kinds of programs that would need to be rescinded already and (bit of an exception here I'll get to it in a second) the ramifications of that would be massive. Much more than I think the collective wi
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't really going to comment here because we're starting to head into territory that's way more than I want to type in a day. But this point.
Congress could pass a law that shifts the federal presumption of guilt or innocence in a manner that would make officers beg to join such a program, though, or remove all federal funding, including grants, for law enforcement in any state that doesn't comply, or both.
gave me a laugh and I wanted to tell you why. Congress can barely agree to lunch.
Let me restate that. Nothing constitutionally precludes it. Whether the current bunch of clowns are capable of the level of thought required to pass such a mandate or not is somewhat orthogonal.
The level of complexity of such a bill that you are pitching because there's all kinds of programs that would need to be rescinded already and (bit of an exception here I'll get to it in a second) the ramifications of that would be massive.
Not necessarily. They could probably pass the buck — change the laws that specific government entities that distribute money are required to follow, adding a requirement that no later than [insert year], all fund distributions to law enforcement agencies must be contingent upon compliance with [requirements
'Off duty' is unrealistic (Score:2)
Nice in theory...
Re: (Score:2)
I know its unlikely, but I would suggest the proper level of footage be at all times the officer is doing something with their police authority, so including off duty or rented cop activities.
You do realize that this is just what the article is complaining about: departments "working out" what to redact as far as private information or "what have you". Yep, they "work it out" in favor of the policeman.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you missed the subtext of those things that are disclosed are described .. meaning they can exclude when the pig is on the toilet but not when they shoot some black guy guilty of being black.
ProPubica? (Score:2, Troll)
Shaving got ya down? Tired of crotch scratching? Join ProPubica now!!
I think I need new glasses.
drones in the sky (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Similar to how you USED to be able to pick up their conversations on police scanners. Now more and more departments are going encrypted.
Re: (Score:2)
That's OK, better gangs and organized crime can't hear police communications. As long as it's all recorded and accessible to the public after the fact and not controlled by police.
Re: drones in the sky (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with what I said?
Re: drones in the sky (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The counterargument (one of them, anyway) is, would you tell the police what you saw in a gang shooting if you knew that you were being recorded? Police work becomes unreasonably difficult without confidential informants.
Re: (Score:2)
"would you tell the police what you saw in a gang shooting if you knew that you were being recorded? "
That should be done at the station, where it would be recorded. It's testimony that would likely be used in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. You testify against one gang member, knowing that the majority of the gang members are still free, and have a history or murdering witnesses.
Re: (Score:2)
They increasingly view the general public as the enemy because the general public is the enemy. People like you, who would much rather make the lives of violent criminals safer at the expense of their victims.
Re: (Score:1)
anyone can fly a drone with live visel feeds,
Anyone used to be able to fly a drone with live visual feeds, but now if it weighs more than 250 grams (about the weight of a roll of quarters) then you are required to:
Register with the FAA and keep a copy of your registration with you to show to any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer if asked.
Take a test on flight rules
Register each drone by number and affix that number to the drone. Registrations are good for three years, then reapply
The drone must transmit the FAA registration number whil
Re: (Score:2)
anyone can fly a drone with live visel feeds,
Anyone used to be able to fly a drone with live visual feeds, but now if it weighs more than 250 grams (about the weight of a roll of quarters) then you are required to
There are drones less than 250 grams with 8k video.
We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing (Score:5, Interesting)
As others have mentioned destroying/tampering with evidence, I think more a paradigm shift where NOTHING an officer says is accepted without accompanying bodycam footage (pics or it didn't happen).
I see this as being a legal standard eventually, but reform of forensic evidence standards has been tedious.
Or hackers start hitting up police departments en mass.
Re:We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoi (Score:4, Insightful)
I have three words for you: (Score:2)
Two words: Ballot initiative. (Score:2)
A technical "solution" to human behavioral problem (Score:3)
When the technological solution fails, the answer isn't an even more invasive technological solution... You can't fix human behavioral issues with technology.
The solution has to be different/better training - yes, that's way more difficult than pinning a camera on the cop.
Currently, you have badly-trained cops who feel the people don't trust them.
I disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems, the majority opinion here is to give all footage to the public, or even live-stream it.
I strongly disagree. IMO, releasing footage affects the rights of all individuals involved. Many of those investigated by police will turn out to be innocent in the end, but publishing that they were investigated might have repercussions for them.
IMO, the bodycam footage is only reallyy needed for cases where it is disputed what happened. Those will be looked into by courts, and IMO it is sufficient if these courts have access to the footage.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems, the majority opinion here is to give all footage to the public, or even live-stream it. I strongly disagree.
...IMO, the bodycam footage is only reallyy needed for cases where it is disputed what happened. Those will be looked into by courts, and IMO it is sufficient if these courts have access to the footage.
For every case where the police kill somebody the footage should be released.
From the summary:
If they shoot somebody, the policeman's privacy does not outweigh the public's need to know. The footage should be released, no exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems, the majority opinion here is to give all footage to the public, or even live-stream it. I strongly disagree. ...IMO, the bodycam footage is only reallyy needed for cases where it is disputed what happened. Those will be looked into by courts, and IMO it is sufficient if these courts have access to the footage.
For every case where the police kill somebody the footage should be released.
It should be released the family of the deceased, so they can press charges if appropriate. I don't think the benefit of release to the public outweighs the potential harm. If the family chooses to release, with the approval of everyone in the video (except the police), that's fine, too.
Re: (Score:2)
For every case where the police kill somebody the footage should be released.
It should be released the family of the deceased, so they can press charges if appropriate. I don't think the benefit of release to the public outweighs the potential harm.
I disagree.
If the police are killing people, that should not be kept secret from the public.
Re: (Score:2)
For every case where the police kill somebody the footage should be released.
It should be released the family of the deceased, so they can press charges if appropriate. I don't think the benefit of release to the public outweighs the potential harm.
I disagree.
If the police are killing people, that should not be kept secret from the public.
Certainly not. But that doesn't mean the public needs to see the video. News can be reported without graphic video that may create problems for innocents people who happen to be in it.
Re: (Score:2)
For every case where the police kill somebody the footage should be released.
It should be released the family of the deceased, so they can press charges if appropriate. I don't think the benefit of release to the public outweighs the potential harm.
I disagree. If the police are killing people, that should not be kept secret from the public.
Certainly not. But that doesn't mean the public needs to see the video. News can be reported without graphic video that may create problems for innocents people who happen to be in it.
I continue to disagree. "It's too graphic for innocent people to see" is !!NOT!! an acceptable excuse for police departments to deep-six videos of policemen killing people.
If policemen are killing people in a way that is too graphically violent for people to see, it is especially critical that it should be released.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to try again, but this time addressing the harm to innocents, I'll be happy to respond.
OK. When police kill people, they are very often harming innocents. When they do that, their actions should be exposed to all of America. Not kept secret by the police.
Let me assure you, if the police are allowed to keep videos of their killing people secret by saying "it's graphic! Can't let 'innocents see that!", they will use that excuse on every video showing a policeman killing innocent people.
You want to protect innocents? Release to the public all videos of police killing people. No exceptions.
Presumption of guilt / innocence (Score:2)
All failures to be recording when on duty and an issue arises should be treated as a disciplinary offence; three strikes and you're sacked.
Judges should comment negatively on the absence of body camera footage in any case; the weight of proving the case will always be against the police in those cases.
The experience of the UK is the body cameras have eliminated many false allegations against the police; the fact that we have a system of complaints that mostly works is something that the USA should pay more
I don't get it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the police be against bodycams? Personably, I i where a police officer I would apreciate a verifiable record of what goes on while I do my job. That way whenm something goes tits up the investigation will be faster and would either be cleared or sendt to the appropriate course to stoip the avoidable mistakes from happening again. Why is tis not considered a win win for everyone involved?
The reason Police don't like cameras is the footage can be used against them by a defence attorney.
Its much easier to defend something written on paper then video in a court.
Imagine having to account for everything you did that was recorded by a video camera of an incident verses a couple sentences on a piece of paper.
Re: I don't get it (Score:1)
When I imagine the cops being treated that way I smile every time.
They love to talk about if we don't have anything to hide... Good for the goose, 1312.
Interesting fact (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably because our individual states are the size of most individual countries. Does the EU have a single police force? I kind of doubt it, but correct me if I'm wrong.
We have local police, state police and federal police and they all have different jurisdictions and do different things. Local police obviously deal with local crimes. Most state police seem to be highway patrols though some may also work with multi-department issues. The feds work on inter-state crimes and coordinate between the vario
Re: (Score:2)
Only three levels of police force in a country that big? Amateurs... Here in Spain we have up to four: Guardia Civil, Policía Nacional, Policía Local, and some autonomous regions (think states, although a one-to-one comparison will break down) have one as well.
In relation to your question about the EU, each country has its own police forces, but there is also a combined border force for the Schengen area called Frontex which is made up of officers on secondment from the national border forces,
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we also have border patrol, so I guess you could call that a 4th level of police, but they have a different mission then our FBI or Marshal service, which are also two different departments of law enforcement. I suppose at the Federal level, we have numerous different enforcement agencies that have specific missions, where as at the state level we tend to have state police and local police.
I'm sure it could be done differently but that's just how we do it.
Re: (Score:2)
To expand a bit further, the US typically has local town/city police, and county sheriffs. We might have a state police and a highway patrol. Those are the major agencies--there are others, as sarren1901 mentioned.
Better Oversight and Training Saves Money (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell fucking no!
Firstly the federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority over state and local law enforcement. All you need to do is look at the colossal fucking mess that CPB is to see why injecting federal politics into basic policing will be a disaster for your average law abiding citizen.
I am sure it will work out great for you shop lifters and gang-bangers though. Which is not say those people don't still have rights that ought to be observed, just that the rest of society should not h
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no, you don't shoot to incapacitate. All gun training clearly states you only use your firearm to protect life, either yours or someone else's. They train you to fire at center mass (the chest) and generally you are shooting to stop, which may also end up as a shooting death.
Just imagine, you are in a very stressful situation and you are suppose to find the clarity to just shoot them in the leg (which can be deadly if they hit the right artery) because you were trying to save them, but remember,
Re: (Score:2)
Dystopian police state don't seem anymore unlikely (Score:1)
Whatever (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, there's a raft of concerns alright. Police departments all over the free world are concerned citizens will find out what a pack of murderous thugs they actually are.
And let's be clear about definitions: a "good cop" who doesn't break the law, but ignores lawbreaking by another cop is NOT a good cop. He belongs in prison right next to his buddy.
Yet another technological solution... (Score:2)
The George Floyd lie won't die (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Mission [propublica.org]
To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing.
That's what it says on the tin.
So despite the bodycam footage itself showing Floyd with white objects in his mouth and resisting arrest, and the coroner's report of lethal levels of fentanyl toxicity, they are going to go with the social justice narrative.
Because that's what le
Anyone say ACAB yet? (Score:2)
I came here to hear someone say ACAB.
I don't know if I should be disappointed.
Re: (Score:1)
You may have missed the recent patch notes for NPC
"defund police!" has been updated to "no one is above the law!"
The incredibly high percentage of successful federal prosecutions is now a feature, not a bug.
Step 1 of... (Score:3)
Getting the cops to wear cameras is only step 1 of improving cop behavior. Mostly useless on its own.
Step 2 is getting the cops to actually record their bad behavior. Good luck, the only ways I can think of are serious penalties for not having it operating, or a presumption of guilt when not recording. Others have suggested various ways that such things could be implemented, and I'm sure there's may more.
Step 3 is getting the footage into the hands of someone providing independent oversight. It seems to me the default assumption should be that all footage goes directly (live streamed if possible) into an archive managed by a police oversight committee, assuming you have one. Internal Affairs at the very least. Ideally beat cops and their coworkers should never even get to see the footage except via a documented requisition, to avoid the temptation to doctor their story to something that agrees with the footage. Not that there aren't legitimate reasons to want to refer to the footage - but those should probably come *after* the initial report has been filed.
I dislike the idea of a more centralized nationwide clearinghouse for such sensitive data because the government *will* abuse it, just like they've abused every other surveillance opportunity. But for problem areas it might be worth at least forming "partnerships" with oversight offices elsewhere in the country - you get a copy of our archive, we get a copy of yours, and then nobody has a way to make local footage disappear.
Release it all (Score:2)
I'm 100% fine with the idea of releasing it all.
If a cop pulls me over for whatever I'm doing, let's have it all on tape.
If they pull over Mel Gibson and he starts shouting drunken antisemitic slurs, let's put that out in the public.
No blurred faces. No hidden identities. No matter how wealthy, connected, or powerful you are: let's see it.
Basically, cops should never be able to turn it off.
Of course, there are going to be some costs. You understand that this means good people who want to speak to a cop a