I've been saying for years that simply turning it off should be grounds for immediate suspension if not full termination.
The only time those cameras should be off is when they go to the bathroom and even then I'm fuckin iffy.
I feel like the solution is a "taking a shit" button which flags that chunk of the video. That way unless there is some suspicion that a crime happened in that chunk of time it goes unwatched.
Yes your honour, I suddenly needed to take a shit in public just when the suspect was assaulted by someone else
Yup definitely goes unwatched. It would be immoral to watch that so that's not going to happen.
Just have it time limited so that every sixty seconds they get a quick audible countdown to point away from their exposed body part at the roll of toilet paper or wall of the urinal. They can't beat someone and keep breaking to arrange a fake shot from atop a toilet.
Cop walks into the toilet, closes the door, turns off the camera. Immediately exits, jumps into police car to find and beat some people they don't like, then turns around, goes back to the toilet and turns it back on before opening the door to leave.
Another thing of note. If you see car hoods up, take out your camera and film. The pigs will pop their hood to block their dashcams.
ACAB
Why is covering the badge number even allowed?
Because cops are the violent arm of the ruling class, and it's convenient for them to be immune to legal consequence.
Who's going to stop them?
Laws?
Hi. Former prison guard here. It turns out that as a cop you can dictate the reality going forward. Just say what you wanted to happen and everyone with authority will say that's what happened.
Enforcement and accountability barely exist these days and you think those are going to work on police? The same police working every day with the very same officers, judges and prosecutors that would investigate them?
Tell me another fairy tale...
...okay...and if the police are breaking the laws, who upholds the laws they're breaking?
Independent police complaint authority, authorized by the government, but run entirely by people from the community. There is a legal department there who handles cases, paid for through taxes. If you have any relationship to anyone on the force, you're ineligible to serve, and no one can handle a case that concerns anyone they know.
It works in my country, but I am aware that doesn't mean we can translate the solution 1:1 to the US, so I'd be interested to know why you guys think this would or wouldn't work.
It is not a perfect system that will solve all problems immediately. There are thousands of daily cases of harassment and abuse of power on a small scale that might end in the big pile and take forever to process. But it will effectively solve a lot of cases - fx cases about covering badge numbers and turning off body cams. These will be open and shut cases, and the punishments will be decided by the Independent Police Complaint Authority, meaning no bullshit paid vacation. Also cases in general that have an obvious outcome to the public, such as unnecessary police brutality and excessive force would probably be handled better by an independent authority.
Every time one of these oversight committees gets set up in the US, the local police Union infiltrates it and prevents it from doing anything.
OR the police union just litigates any punitive damages against one of their own and off they go, scot free.
Look, we just need more police, obviously. /s
The only thing that works against a bad cop is a good cop. Except there ain't no good cops. Police is inherently not reformable.
#defundthepolice
Last I checked, a piece of paper with words on it can't carry a gun or force someone into handcuffs.
Laws have had little luck stopping police from doing whatever the fuck they want
What enforcement mechanisms will we use? Cops already break laws regularly
I'm calling the cops!!
Body cams should also work as a time clock. If the camera isn't on, they are off the clock and not getting paid.
And don't have qualified immunity
Well they shouldn't have that to begin with anyway.
That's actually an interesting idea. Always capturing, perhaps at half-fidelity to save wear and tear on the storage card and full quality when they activate for a call. I don't know why I've never seen anyone suggest this.
I can see legitimate grounds to switch them off. E.g. talking to a witness, or informant, who doesn't want anything on record.
It should be properly noted in their records however, and viewed with suspicion if overused.
FYI, good police actually love the cameras. They vastly cut down on false accusations, or at least nip them in the bud. It's also, apparently extremely satisfying and effective to show someone exactly how they came across. It really runs in a drunk tank hangover.
Also they should never be believed for anything they say happened without the camera on, not just the thing itself, but also the context.
Like, you had the option to record this behavior and chose not to, why should I trust you
This should void their qualified immunity or whatever you American kids call it these days.
I don’t think the legal principle is even that important these days. It’s more so that some people are immune to laws because no one will prosecute. It’s just power.
Rights seem to be taken not granted.
I cant recall it specifically, but I am sure Ive heard of a term which describes this in a legal sense - if whatever accountability that exists is intentionally blocked, its presumed to be worst case scenario
Not sure if it's what you're remembering, but adverse inference can be drawn when a party fails to present evidence known to exist by the court.
That sounds familiar. “Show us x and if you can’t we will assume its incriminating towards you”?
In this case - show us the body cam footage, and if youve hidden it or otherwise impaired its capture, the adverse inference is taken
"Sorry we can't find it"
Suppose someone who isn't a cop does this and uses a fake uniform? How could anyone be able to tell if the officer is legitimate? That alone should make police departments not want to endorse such practices.
The way they're looking at it:
What's more likely? That we do sketchy or blatantly illegal shit, abuse our power, and having our badges and cams (measures created in an attempt to increase police accountability) helps us avoid any and all consequences...
...or people decide to buy fake uniforms and badges in any significant numbers and use these same tactics to confuse the general public...in any way that we, as a police force, actually CARE about?
Keep in mind that police impersonators would have to be impacting the police forces so much and so negatively that it would get to the point that it's not worth preserving their own impunity. That's incredibly unlikely.
That’s an incredibly valid argument.
ACAB
I'm glad this is happening under blue man, because otherwise this would be a sign of a fascist regime!
Close to the bone there
It is... But it should ALSO be considered a premeditated crime.
I have never been able to make it all the way through that. It's like Scott's Tots but for fascists.
Same. I can only get through 5 seconds of Trump before cringing the hell out. Don't understand how anyone can be enamored with him.
Should, but it won't be.
And they should be sterilized.
ChonkyOwlbear is an Illegitimate Usurper
There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree
See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link
Cool People: !thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world
