152
Police officers mock body-worn video of semi-naked woman
(www.bbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
152 points (95.8% liked)
News
23770 readers
3529 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.