News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Hear me out on this, but I don't think the public should be seeing most body cam footage. I don't think anyone should be seeing most bodycam footage, including the officer that shot the video and their department.
When I inform a cop of a crime, I don't particularly want that conversation released to the general public. While I don't technically have "privacy" while providing such a tip, I don't think it unreasonable that my identity and information should be held in fairly strict confidence.
Body cam footage isn't supposed to be released under public records requests. Metadata indicating that footage was shot at a particular time and place should be released, but the footage itself should only be accessible with a subpoena. Not even the cop who shot it should have access to that footage without a subpoena. That footage should go into a black hole, and only be pulled out with judicial oversight. Only the metadata should be widely available, to inform potential complainants of what video they can subpoena.
The video should be easily accessible to complainants, plaintiffs, or defendants through subpoena, but that's about it.
At the same time, I think a body camera should serve as an officer's time clock. They should only be paid while their camera is turned on, and they should not be entitled to any privileges, powers, or protections afforded to law enforcement officers (especially including qualified immunity) while scheduled to work, but not on camera.
A police victim’s family definitely has the right to see the footage, imo. Otherwise they can just mark everything as “accidental” or “unavoidable” like it already happens.
A police victim's family does, indeed, have the right to the video. As complainants. The video will be subpoenaed as part of the investigation that they demand.
The process by which the family gets access to the video is the exact one I described.
I think that already requires some legal knowledge poor families might not have. I’m not American so I don’t know the procedure, correct me if I’m wrong, but issuing a subpoena doesn’t feel like an easy thing from what I read.
I can see why you would think that, but that's really not the case. What I'm explaining is more a technicality than anything.
The family thinks the police did something wrong. They express that belief to someone. That someone is an investigator. It might be a prosecutor, it might be an attorney, it might be the executor of the deceased's estate, or a victim's advocate, or their insurance agent, or the sheriff, or the FBI... It might first go to the press or a family friend, but it is going to quickly be referred to some investigator or another. (This is all assuming the family isn't investigating directly; they certainly have the right to conduct the investigation themselves, and file a motion for a subpoena)
The investigator(s) assigned to the case will have need for all the evidence, and they will be the ones drafting the subpoena. The family can request the video from the investigator, or subpoena it directly, but the video will only be released with a subpoena.
Let me put it a different way:
"I am a family member of the deceased" is not enough to get the video.
"I am a family member of the deceased, and I think their death was suspicious" is enough to get a subpoena, and thus the video.
That’s reassuring, but then I’m confused by this:
If getting the footage is relatively easy, why can’t those videos be released even if the families want it? Am I misreading it and is the situation more “families have the video, but not the clearance to show it to the public”?
First, I described what I think the law should be, not what the law actually is. Under the current law, authorities are free to release the videos to the public for any reason. Under current law, families are free to release the videos to the public for any reason.
Second, ProPublica went to lengths to obfuscate the issue. The only videos that families aren't being allowed to release to the general public are those that are still under investigation. Charges can still be filed, and a jury constituted to determine the facts of a case. Releasing a video to the public can contaminate the jury pool, and prevent the family from getting justice.
Third, ProPublica only distinguishes between families who have and have not released videos. They do not ask whether a family wants such a video released. I can imagine plenty of circumstances where a family would not want the public to see how their loved one died.
Okay, I missed the first point before, thanks.
So about the second one, you’re saying that those videos “even pleas from victims’ families don’t serve to shake loose” are all under investigation and the family can see them, but are forbidden from releasing them to the public because it would be detrimental to the process?
To the best of my knowledge, that is reasonably accurate. Note that I don't have specific knowledge of every single case: my claim is based on my general understanding of investigative procedure. The ProPublica article quietly mentions ongoing investigations as the reason why a video is not being released, but did not adequately explain either that this is routine procedure or the reason why such a procedure is necessary and proper.
The problem with that is you're relying on these people to be honest, which we know is a huge problem.
That's the exact problem I am trying to address.
The main issue I see is that the officer does deserve some degree of privacy while on the job. Not much, but some sensible degree.
Think about the worst micromanaging supervisor you ever had. Now, give him access to watch a feed from your body camera, observing every move you make throughout the entire day.
I wouldn't work under those conditions. The only person I can think of who would willingly work under such working conditions would be a completely anal retentive stickler for every rule. That's not the kind of cop I want working in my community.
So, if I want a good cop to keep his camera on and collecting evidence against him, yet not be subjected to an unreasonable, intrusive degree of micromanaging supervision, I have to take away his supervisor's authority to arbitrarily view his camera footage.
So, he only gets paid if he turns on his camera. He only gets qualified immunity for his actions if his camera is on. He only gets to exercise law enforcement authority if he has his camera on. But, he is protected because his video can't be used for administrative purposes.
His honesty - or lack thereof - is no longer relevant to his camera usage.
Why do they deserve job privacy? They're public officials that we pay for.
Your comparison of a Micromanaging supervisor isn't accurate IMO because I doubt that the supervisor doesn't care about 90% of the cop's activities. I think they're also only triggered to record in certain circumstances. The public shouldn't have free access to all recordings at the drop of a hat, but if a relative of someone involved has a request to see evidence they shouldn't be able to be blocked by cops.
...
Those two statements are contradictory.
Any rebuttal I give for the first will be an explanation of the second. Since you have conceded the second, whatever explanation you use to justify your concession can be considered my rebuttal for the first.
If that doesn't seem to make sense to you, please expand and clarify what you mean by that second statement.
What part of my proposal do you believe allows police to block a request to see evidence?
If you understood what a subpoena is, you would not be arguing that my proposal allows cops to block anything. My proposal requires cops to record far more than they currently do, and it provides much broader access to that video than we currently have.
I don't want to work for a supervisor who has the ability to crawl that far up my ass. I don't want any of my co-workers, superiors, or subordinates to work for supervisors who are allowed to crawl that far up their subordinate's asses.
I believe the only person who can reliably thrive with a supervisor possessing such capability is an anal retentive, nightmarish, super-Karen. Someone who moves to a neighborhood because of their nightmare HOA rather than in spite of it. An asshole. A prick. An authoritarian nightmare of a person who should never have any degree of authority over any other person ever. And I believe that such a person will tend to gravitate to supervisory and management positions in law enforcement.
I want cops who won't tolerate that sort of workplace harassment. I want cops who recognize the need for tolerance and compassion, where the law doesn't necessarily obligate them to provide it. I want the cops patrolling my neighborhood to be reasonable, rational people; the kind of people who buy lemonade from a kid's stand, and threaten a nosy Karen who tries to shut down that stand.
I want the kind of cops who would need to be protected from an intrusive asshole supervisor, not the kind of people who will become intrusive asshole supervisors.
I agree though I’ll add another group: Internal Affairs officers. If a cop has been accused of habitual wrongdoing I want IA to have easy access to it.
That said the current problem is that even on camera they have a habit of intentionally blocking its view.
IA has access by way of a subpoena. They can present allegations or a complaint, same as anyone else, and request access to all related evidence. They shouldn't be going fishing. They should need some sort of justification before they should be allowed to pull tape.
Then they should be fired and charged with obstructing an investigation and destroying evidence.
Until there's actual accountability the police won't change.
Absolutely not. That defeats the entire purpose. Foia requests should 100% be answered.
An officer wears a body camera. A confidential informant against the mafia runs up to him in the street and starts talking to him.
A mafia lawyer files a FOIA request for the body camera video of every officer in the department.
Should the department comply with this FOIA request, give up the video and expose the informant to the mafia?
Should the officer be allowed to leave his camera off throughout the day, so as to avoid creating a record that he would be forced to turn over?
Suppose I were to SWAT you. I spoof your number, call the police, tell them I'm you, get them to raid "my" house. They get all geared up, turn in their cameras, raid your house, discover it was a prank. Should I, or anyone I tell, now be allowed to file a FOIA request for their video footage, and publish it "for the lulz"?
The idealistic, absolute position you took here would be ripe for abuse.
I want those cameras running all day long. They should be incorporated into the officer's badge, and have no "off" setting. It should be recording from the time they take it off the charger at the start of their shift, and should keep running until they put it back on the charger after their shift.
The only way that level of intrusiveness is feasible is if nobody - and I mean nobody - can view that video without a warrant or a subpoena.
Obviously that's not an artist situation. Easy appendage to the law. Arrests can't be done with cameras off and turning a camera off should automatically be logged. Therefore a cup who presses the button to turn one off before an arrest should be subject to firing and prosecution. Pressing the button before a your convo with an informant should be no big deal.
Welcome to nuance. It's where we don't blanket accept manipulation and bullying just to avoid a particular specific scenario included in the blanket.
Also yeah, why shouldn't a SWAT be recorded and subject to request?
We also can't rule out technical failure. That's why they should be tamper resistant and have a log for button presses, GPS data, and automatically report. I don't wanna see a cop be prosecuted because some tech fucked up on them.
You failed to comprehend that situation. You do not appear to understand the concept of "swatting" if you believe it even remotely reasonable to release that camera footage.
Humans are notoriously bad at consistently following requirements. If your system requires extensive human interaction in real time, your system will also require tolerance for mistakes that humans consistently make when given only split seconds to consider their decisions. The exemplar scenarios I presented demand significantly more thought and consideration than a single officer's quick decision as to whether or not to record. Cases should not succeed or fail, and confidence should not be kept or broken on a single officer's split second decision as to whether his camera should be on or off at a particular moment.
With your system, cameras will occasionally be off when they should be on. That's just human fallibility. No amount of punishment will ever prevent an honest mistake.
We can't get footage if it was never recorded, so we should err on the side of creating the recording. But, we cannot allow the existence of a recording to create unnecessary harm, either to the officer or to members of the public.
We don't need to see any video where there is no suspicion of wrongdoing. When there is a suspicion, we need that camera to have been on. My approach systematically solves both problems; your approach does not.
I had to file a report to an officer against a family member. Definitely would suck if that went public for some reason.
The problem there is that neither political party can reconcile this untrustworthiness of police with in their party line.
I think to some degree this is tripped up by the parties positions on guns: Republican party messaging is pro-cop, but cannot trust police so much that it undermines the pro-gun position that you cannot actually trust police to be the only ones capable of protecting you. Conversely Democrat party's messaging sort of distrusts police, but cannot openly distrust them to a degree that reconciles with actually NOT trusting them to be your only line of defense as it undermines this core political position that it is wrong for citizens to have the means for armed self-defense.
I disagree. Both parties want the objective viewpoint that cameras provide. Democrats primarily out of distrust of cops; Republicans out of distrust of the general public.
Cops generally want cameras, but don't want to be subjected to micromanaging and administrative abuse.
Finally someone with a reasonable response. The other day I saw a very mentally ill woman attempt to stab a police officer and had to be shot.
I would never want myself, family member or loved one to be seen like that.
Same with drug overdoses or a number of other emergencies.
Your feelings matter dramatically less than society's ability to keep police in line. If you wanna close your eyes, go ahead. Don't close mine.
This is a point I'm making because many feel this way about close loved ones, and not wanting tons of strangers and weirdos watching. Basic dignity for the deceased. That being said this information shouldn't be completely restricted and be accessible via the American freedom of information act.
All of this extremely personal footage shouldn't be dumped to the public for everyone to see, only accessible when suspected of suspicious activity or other officer/authority misconduct, with the freedom of information act mentioned precisely.
There's nothing personal or even reasonable expectation of privacy about what you described. Deal with some embarrassment. Truth and accountability matters more.