cisnowflake:nerdylilpeebee: siryouarebeingmocked: bestieboomdrive:siryouarebeingmocked:>POLIC
cisnowflake:nerdylilpeebee: siryouarebeingmocked: bestieboomdrive:siryouarebeingmocked:>POLICE BODY CAMERAS CAN THREATEN CIVIL RIGHTS OF BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE, NEW REPORT SAYS< - NewsweekSo, after literal years of people demanding bodycams, this organization is suddenly complaining about their use?Also, how is this a “civil rights” issue? “Communities of color” (IE poor black neighbourhoods) are “disproportionately surveilled” because that’s where a lot of crime happens. Black people have a higher chance of being murdered than any other racial group. By other black people. “ So, after literal years of people demanding bodycams, this organization is suddenly complaining about their use? “What is “Reducto Ad Absurdum”?They’re pointing out that the purpose of a Police’s Body Camera is to have an impartial objective record that can contradict a Police’s Written or Spoken statement, which is then used to confirm/deny whether or not that cop’s testimony is credible. For example. before the police interrogate a prime suspect, they will carefully collect and review multiple forms of camera footage and eyewitness testimony.They will NOT offer to show said footage or testimony to that suspect before interrogating them. This is so that the suspect freely present their own perspective, and if they then contradict any of said camera footage, then interrogators are then able to call them out on their lies, red-handed, and invalidate their testimony in a court of law.These Viral videos from JCS are a great example of this technique at work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JttwV6XZ_IWhen we allow cops free reign to review their own body camera footage before they give any written or spoken statements, we’re giving a dishonest cop the opportunity to cover their ass, and construct an airtight narrative, when they would otherwise provably lie to save their own skin. I guess the Average Conservative can’t read above an 8th Grade level, and assumes this is some sort of contradiction, instead of basic police procedure… just applied to cops. Which part of that Gish Gallop makes this a civil or constitutional rights issue? Or a racial one? That’s a good fucking question. :/ I’m sorry but I still refuse to believe that we’re worse off having video evidence of these interactions than not. Maybe being able to review the camera before gives the police an advantage in interrogation or in the courtroom but they can’t change the objective reality of what’s going on in those videos. Let’s be honest, progressives pushed for these body cameras because they thought it would catch police misconduct or force a change in their behavior but the reality is more often than not it’s much more damning for the people they’re interacting with. Oh good! The you effectively agree with the report in the article. The report isn’t claiming that it would be better not to have body cameras. It’s just discussing how body cameras alone, absent proper use policy, does not fix all of the problems with policing. As you mentioned, being able to review the footage does give police an advantage, mostly in pre-trial, trial, and other assorted legal proceedings. Police reports are used as evidence of what the officer remembered/ the officer’s perception at the time of their action. Based on that perception, which is the only perceptions that matters for things like use of force where the standard is what the officer reasonably would have thought was appropriate given the circumstances, details that witnesses remember that the officer does not, or missing information can be used to impeach the credibility of the officer’s testimony. However, the ability to do that goes out the window if officers are allowed to review body camera footage before writing their official reports. Furthermore, if officers are allowed to review footage before writing their official reports, they can include much more information than witnesses who are not afforded the same opportunity. That means that not only is it basically impossible to impeach the officer’s testimony based on the official report, but now that testimony might seem more reliable than would be warranted with the officer’s reflections without prompting. This is partially why police refuse to release body camera footage when specific actions are important–they don’t want to taint the witness’s own recollections with the information in the footage. The report is suggesting that this should apply to officers as well, and in most major police departments with body cameras it just… doesn’t. That’s all. Nothing more and nothing less. And progressives (or at the very least most people who supported body cameras) never thought that the vast majority of police interactions were misconduct. That would be ridiculous. Instead, the issue is that the majority of police misconduct is disproportionately done to POC and that POC are more likely to experience police misconduct. That’s the racial aspect here. The Constitutional aspect is about Fourth Amendment rights as well as just the general legal effects. But, happy to hear that you disagreement with the report appears to stem more from misinformation and misunderstanding as opposed to actual substance. I’d recommend reading it. It’s pretty interesting. -- source link
#nuance#rebuttal#policing#body camera