- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Officers viewed footage showing woman’s groin without valid reason, but avoided misconduct hearings.
Officers viewed footage showing woman’s groin without valid reason, but avoided misconduct hearings.
Gonna link to this the next time someone claims the public should have full, unrestricted access to all body cam footage ever captured.
You don’t think they could blur anything?
The arguments I’ve seen basically ask for every second of video recorded to be posted online. The public should be able to FOIA request everything. With the amount of video they should be recording, (dash cams, body cams, fixed cameras), we would need to hire 2-3 media specialists to do the blurring for each and every cop we have in the field. With this in mind, the most accurate, direct answer to your question is “No, I don’t think they could blur anything.”
I think that when I am pulled over in public and forced to interact with a cop, the video record of that interaction should remain outside the view of the public, unless and until I am charged and convicted. I believe the cop, his supervisor, and everyone in the department should be prohibited from viewing that video without asking the courts for a warrant or subpoena.
The circumstances of this article demonstrate why.
How often are you supposing that naked people end up on body cam footage?
For clarity, I am not going to respond to that question. My response will be to the question you should have asked, and is repeated from my previous comment:
Nudity is but one example of why these videos should not be viewed. I provided another: the non-consensual traffic stop. What I say and do during that stop should not be made public without good cause. Clips from the officer’s bathroom breaks should not be publicly accessible. Clips from officers responding to medical emergencies. Clips from officers chatting on patrol while waiting for a call. Clips of them talking with confidential informants or members of the public.
If you go through a typical officer’s entire day, you’ll likely find less than 5 minutes of video that the public should eventually be able to see. If you go through a corrupt officer’s day, you’ll likely see 8 hours of video that the public should see.
The solution is to record everything both officers do, but nobody - NOBODY - gets to see any of it without a complaint and a warrant or subpoena.
I want cops to have their cameras built into their badges, and used as punch clocks. Their camera goes off, they stop getting paid, and their testimony about events happening during their shift is presumed totally unreliable. I want everything recorded, so it is available when we go to subpoena the video, but nobody is watching it without a complaint having been made.
LOL. What a douche.
BTW I agree with you. The point you actually should have brought up is that the moment someone blurs part of the footage, its entire validity as proof of the actual event goes out the window.
The moment it gets put into an editing software, any number of changes can be made to make any point conceivable.
I think a middle ground approach would be to defacto give access to the footage to the defendants in the case but not the general public.
That’s pretty much what I’m talking about, but not just defendants, but also plaintiffs and complainants. Cops and prosecutors can claim the video is evidence of a crime, and subpoena it for evidence. A citizen can claim the video is evidence of the cop’s wrongdoing, and subpoena it for evidence. Bodycam videos should not be subject to FOIA requests. They should only be available by court order.
The metadata - date, time, location - should be public record. Everyone should know if a video was recorded, so we can verify officers are actually making the records they are supposed to be making, and aren’t deleting them after the fact.