this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
993 points (99.1% liked)

News

23300 readers
3396 users here now

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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

At least 1,201 people were killed in 2022 by law enforcement officers, about 100 deaths a month, according to Mapping Police Violence, a nonprofit research group that tracks police killings. ProPublica examined the 101 deaths that occurred in June 2022, a time frame chosen because enough time had elapsed that investigations could reasonably be expected to have concluded. The cases involved 131 law enforcement agencies in 34 states.

In 79 of those deaths, ProPublica confirmed that body-worn camera video exists. But more than a year later, authorities or victims’ families had released the footage of only 33 incidents.

Philadelphia signed a $12.5 million contract in 2017 to equip its entire police force with cameras. Since then, at least 27 people have been killed by Philadelphia police, according to Mapping Police Violence, but in only two cases has body-camera video been released to the public.

ProPublica’s review shows that withholding body-worn camera footage from the public has become so entrenched in some cities that even pleas from victims’ families don’t serve to shake the video loose.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 99 points 11 months ago (19 children)

we get it. cops are cowards. why else would this be one of the only countries where officers are lethally armed around the clock. cowards.

[–] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 46 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And cowardice bred from ignorance and stupidity. It's not even that dangerous of a job comparatively. And many including myself believe it would be even less dangerous if they stopped arming themselves like they're going to war.

[–] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 30 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It would be nice if counties stopped allowing them to buy armoured vehicles and ... this is a big one ... gave every one of them a psych eval prior to hiring.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago (2 children)

They need a third party psychological deprogramming once per year. They're hired and paid based on the fact that they won't question the way they enforce laws and the tactics that they use.

[–] ElJefe@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Police forces are working exactly as intended. The reason they aren’t changing is because they protect the ruling class by intimidating the public. As long as the ruling class is protected, there will be no reason to fund psych evals; there will be no reason to hire decent human beings.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

cops should be tested for steroid use randomly and monthly.

My guess as long as 320 million people have 434 million legal firearms the cops are not going to give theirs up either.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 76 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Well you didn't do something silly like give control over the means of monitoring the police to only the police right? . . . right?

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You bring up a fair point. This should be investigated. In the interest of fairness let the investigation be handled by the police.

[–] JonEFive@midwest.social 4 points 11 months ago

They've investigated themselves and found that everything they're doing is completely acceptable. Carry on citizen.

[–] Rivalarrival 66 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (11 children)

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.

[–] Syrc@lemmy.world 36 points 11 months ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The problem with that is you're relying on these people to be honest, which we know is a huge problem.

[–] Rivalarrival 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Rivalarrival 4 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Absolutely not. That defeats the entire purpose. Foia requests should 100% be answered.

[–] Rivalarrival 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 48 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If nothing else, the lack of shown footage should be shifting some mindsets about police.

"What a load of criminals complaining about everything. Obviously, our boys in blue would never do anything suspect, as you'll see now that they can show you footage of their own perfectly orderly arrests."
"They all keep their cameras off and never turn over body cam footage."
"B-...huh? But...they're noble protectors that have nothing to hide...! Why would they...?"

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Conservatives will literally reply to that with:

Sotimes you gotta rough up the bad guys so they learn not to do it. It's a cops god given right to sort out the bad apples like that, they just turn the cam off because the LIBRULS would take them over coals for doing gods work

[–] Renacles@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Conservatives just like seeing police beat up those they disagree with.

[–] YeeterPan@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 30 points 11 months ago

...most of the footage is kept from public view

Well yeah, unedited video footage has this odd tendency to exonerate the innocent and impugn the guilty

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)
  • Claim that reform will do thing.

  • Reform fails to do thing.

  • Cries of surprise from assembly.

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The problem is that the reform was supposed to add accountability. But if the public can't access the footage and police are free to "accidentally" turn their bodycams off before or "oopsie woopsie I deleted the footage" after they break the law there's zero accountability, and therefore no meaningful reform.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

are you saying police cams are useless, or that the police are purposefully obstructing justice by blocking the footage. im confused

[–] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Your second question solves the first.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

It's almost like you can't force people to try to fix an irrevocably broken system because you're afraid of living without it

It's almost like we should have overthrown them or something

It's almost like everyone was propagandized into accepting band aid solutions and refused to listen when they were told it wouldn't work

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How many of those same police departments willingly released certain footage though as defense of their own officers in court after careful review and redaction?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MaxPow3r11@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Abolish police.

There's no "reforming" a system that was BUILT this way.

I don't want to hear it. Find another place to lick boots.

[–] harpo@sh.itjust.works 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The system in the USA is built this way. There are countries in the world where police officers act professionally and can be trusted.

We don't want a lawless, free for all place without any law enforcement, we deserve a proper force, trained to behave in a professional manner, and monitored to do so.

You could describe the deep reform needed as "abolish and then build from the ground", but that's a matter of how to reach the goal, rather than a change in the goal itself'.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] YeeterPan@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The watering down of "Defund the Police" for more palatable public consumption was a travesty.

"Oh no, we're reasonable! We just want the police to have access to more training and better tools to engage with the public!"

No, we wanted them gone, from the ground up.

[–] dumpsterlid@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

It definitely showed just how powerful and overwhelming copaganda is. "Defund the Police" really struck a nerve with the people who hold the power in US society, I think we should keep striking that nerve.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (19 children)

There is no such thing as reforming the Police. They are an evil collective of people.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] OceanSoap@lemmy.ml 8 points 11 months ago (4 children)

...isn't there a way to legally request any video footage? That's how all those body-cam yt channels get their footage from, by placing requests in. I thought it was a federal law that you can obtain any police cam video.

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yes you can request the footage, and they can also bury you in red tape until you give up the request.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tgxn@lemmy.tgxn.net 4 points 11 months ago

Pretty sure that's USA's Freedom of information Act.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dipshit@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Wonder why that is..

[–] ByteWizard@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

In 'news that was incredibly obvious from the start'.....no shit sherlock.

load more comments
view more: next ›