Officers viewed footage showing woman’s groin without valid reason, but avoided misconduct hearings.

  • Skye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    How often are you supposing that naked people end up on body cam footage?

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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:

      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.

      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.

      • prole
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        For clarity, I am not going to respond to that question. My response will be to the question you should have asked,

        LOL. What a douche.

      • Skye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.