Law Police Bodycams are Racist

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Article
The number of U.S. police departments outfitting their officers with body cameras increases each year, but the cameras can pose a threat to civil rights if the departments fail to set rules that govern when officers review footage from their cameras, according to a new report.

The vast majority of the nation’s biggest police departments allow officers to watch footage from body cameras whenever they want, including before they write their incident reports or make statements, said the report, which was released Tuesday by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

“Unrestricted footage review places civil rights at risk and undermines the goals of transparency and accountability,” said Vanita Gupta, former head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and current head of the Leadership Conference, in the report’s introduction.
Because an officer’s memory of an event may be altered by watching body camera footage, doing so will likely alter what officers write in their reports. That, in turn, can make it more difficult for investigators or courts to assess whether the officer’s actions were reasonable based on what he or she perceived at the time of the incident, states the report, “The Illusion of Accuracy: How Body-Worn Camera Footage Can Distort Evidence.”
Body camera programs are in place at 62 of the 69 largest U.S. police departments, according to a scorecard released Tuesday by the Leadership Conference. Most of those departments—55, or almost 80 percent—allow officers to view their footage whenever they want.

The Leadership Conference report advises that police departments institute a “clean reporting” policy, under which officers write an initial incident report before reviewing any footage. Only afterward would they watch the footage and write a second, supplementary report.

“We make the case that in the interests of consistency, fairness, transparency and accountability, clean reporting should be adopted as a standard practice for all police departments with body-worn camera programs,” writes Gupta in the introduction.

Some policing experts say officers should view the footage before writing a report to make sure the account is correct.

“They want to be as accurate as they can,” Lance LoRusso, an ex-cop and current Atlanta attorney who represents police officers, told the Associated Press. “This specter that every time an officer looks at the video they’re going to lie and adapt their statement just is infuriating because we want the officers to write the most accurate report they can.”
 
I don't understand the logic behind this.

"Police should write things from memory because that's the most correct interpretation of the situation"?

Sounds like a way to use body-cam footage vs the report the cop files to nitpick inconsistencies. "The officer wrote in his report that he was called a 'fucking pig', but was in fact called 'fucking cop', ergo his report and testimony are false and the charges should be thrown out!"
 
"HE DINDU NUFFIN!"
"Okay let's review the body cam footage and..."
"BODYCAMS IS RACIST!!"
 
People wanted the police to wear bodycams, but now they don't want them to wear them?
 
"The officer wrote in his report that he was called a 'fucking pig', but was in fact called 'fucking cop', ergo his report and testimony are false and the charges should be thrown out!"

To be fair, this is what suspects are subjected to in regards to interrogations, which is why you are read your rights upon being arrested and any dipshit who hears "you have the right to remain silent" and "you have the right to a lawyer" before any questioning and doesn't immediately shut their mouth is in for a very bad time.
 
i get what they're saying, but they worded it in the worst possible way
the point being made is that (in the one idea of a police interaction they have available in their brain) a RACIST WHITE COP could, instead of saying "i was terrified i saw him lunge for what could probably be 6 chainsaws so i had to shoot" and getting fucked by the video catching them in a lie they would look over the footage and craft the best possible lie, making it harder to use that footage for anything at all

it's clear most of the people cited in this article don't actually know what they're talking about though, they just want to hate cops and SMASH RACISM
 
The leadership conference on civil and human rights should change its name to the leadership conference on criminals rights. This is yet another organisation that fights for the rights of the poor oppresssed criminal over the rights of the law abding citzen. Here they are doing what they do best, obstructing justice.
 
I give it 12 months at best until this argument is moot because either smartphones themselves or some equivalent pocket technology that records shit 24/7 will be marketed by Google as the new hotness and become ubiquitous and all the trendy pearl-clutchers forget that they ever thought being able to rewrite personal narratives after reviewing footage was a bad idea.
 
Fun fact: with the implementation of body cams, cop shootings have increased. Police no longer have to fear their side of the story not being believed, when once was the case.
 
Not a lawfag but I think what some are missing here is perp doesn't get to review footage of his arrest prior to talking/interacting with the popo. If you waive your right to counsel and make a statement, you can be facing a recording that pokes holes in your statement while the prosecution gets a totally consistent report based off (potentially) the cop's rationalization of the footage and his recollections.

I don't know. It's one of those things where I think there might be gaps and it is good to think these things through.
 
People wanted the police to wear bodycams, but now they don't want them to wear them?
They want cops to wear them, but they don't want the footage being used unless it shows that the guy, in fact, dindu nothing. It's exclusively meant as evidence against a cop whenever police brutality actually does happen, but never in any other scenario.

Funnily enough, I think ABL called this like a year or so ago.
 
Back
Top Bottom