There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Body Cameras Were Sold as a Tool of Police Reform. Ten Years Later, Most of the Footage Is Kept From Public View.

At least 1,201 people were killed in 2022 by law enforcement officers, about 100 deaths a month, according to Mapping Police Violence, a nonprofit research group that tracks police killings. ProPublica examined the 101 deaths that occurred in June 2022, a time frame chosen because enough time had elapsed that investigations could reasonably be expected to have concluded. The cases involved 131 law enforcement agencies in 34 states.

In 79 of those deaths, ProPublica confirmed that body-worn camera video exists. But more than a year later, authorities or victims’ families had released the footage of only 33 incidents.

Philadelphia signed a $12.5 million contract in 2017 to equip its entire police force with cameras. Since then, at least 27 people have been killed by Philadelphia police, according to Mapping Police Violence, but in only two cases has body-camera video been released to the public.

ProPublica’s review shows that withholding body-worn camera footage from the public has become so entrenched in some cities that even pleas from victims’ families don’t serve to shake the video loose.

dipshit ,

Wonder why that is…

reverendsteveii ,

…most of the footage is kept from public view

Well yeah, unedited video footage has this odd tendency to exonerate the innocent and impugn the guilty

MaxPow3r11 ,

Abolish police.

There’s no “reforming” a system that was BUILT this way.

I don’t want to hear it. Find another place to lick boots.

harpo ,

The system in the USA is built this way. There are countries in the world where police officers act professionally and can be trusted.

We don’t want a lawless, free for all place without any law enforcement, we deserve a proper force, trained to behave in a professional manner, and monitored to do so.

You could describe the deep reform needed as “abolish and then build from the ground”, but that’s a matter of how to reach the goal, rather than a change in the goal itself’.

Zink ,

We could start by making the people who are issued government firearms and the ability to stop whoever they want conform to higher standards than random schmucks in the population. We don’t need lower standards when lives and livelihoods are on the line.

Gee I wonder who is out there that will recklessly give excess power to sketchy characters as long as they believe that person will only hurt the “other” people.

YeeterPan ,

The watering down of “Defund the Police” for more palatable public consumption was a travesty.

“Oh no, we’re reasonable! We just want the police to have access to more training and better tools to engage with the public!”

No, we wanted them gone, from the ground up.

dumpsterlid ,

It definitely showed just how powerful and overwhelming copaganda is. “Defund the Police” really struck a nerve with the people who hold the power in US society, I think we should keep striking that nerve.

asret ,

Here the police are viewed as the proverbial ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Every dollar spent on them is evidence of a failure somewhere else in the system.

We still don’t want to remove them though, they still provide that important safety net; any complex system is likely to have errors at some point.

Woht24 ,

You say it’s boot licking to question you, which in itself is fucking retarded.

But I want to hear your plan.

Say we abolish the police - what next?

Suavevillain ,
@Suavevillain@lemmy.world avatar

There is no such thing as reforming the Police. They are an evil collective of people.

chitak166 ,

I disagree. Just saw a video on krudplug of a cop shooting a guy right before he can cut up a lady with a butcher knife.

There are crazy, dangerous people in the world. If you can’t fight and you don’t own a gun, you are at the mercy of others to protect you.

I think it’s sad how the vast majority of people who are anti-cop cannot fight and do not own guns.

stembolts ,

The reasoning you just used was in the form of an anecdote, which undermines your whole point. Anecdotal thinking is one of the most common ways that humans arrive at irrational conclusions.

Why should you care? Well, if you believe what you stated, then you should want other people to believe it too. In order to do this the first step is to learn how to present it without any of the common logical flaws humans are born with.

Your argument pattern is, “Event X happened and I saw it, therefore Y”. No. You need a much larger sample size to make a point. I can’t teach you rational argument in one post, but hopefully you’ll become curious enough to learn. Have a nice day.

duffman ,

Yet most of the negative sentiment on cops comes from anecdotes. And of course now we have the Internet so now there’s availability bias of all of the extreme cases that go viral. When a study asked how many unarmed blacks were killed by police each year most left leaning were wrong by an order of magnitude.

JonEFive ,

There are some biases inherent to the relevant data. For example, you might be right about this specific situation (police shooting unarmed black people), but what about other instances of violence or misconduct?

We need to consider where data about that comes from. Are we to trust the accuracy of police reports and their own statements as they pertain to misconduct? IA investigations that frequently find no wrongdoing even when it’s plainly obvious that the situation was handled improperly? Or at least could have been avoided? Should we rely upon charges filed against police and their conviction rate?

There’s no official national database for this stuff by the way, and localities almost never produce such metrics willingly, so it’s up to someone to comb through public records. And that, like the case of body cam videos, assumes that police will properly follow FOIA requests.

I’m not suggesting that we assume the absolute worst, but we need to recognize that whatever the data says, the situation is almost definitely worse than that due to these biases.

duffman ,

Oh I’m sure it’s definitely worse than the data we have suggests. I’m not arguing against police reforms or standardization. But in the situation I stated, there were a large percentage of people who believed it was in the thousands, or 10s of thousands on an annual basis.

The prevailing opinions and rhetoric on police paint them not as individuals, but as a cabal of cartoon villains.

tmyakal ,

most of the negative sentiment on cops comes from anecdotes

Oh, I thought it came from the years of empirical evidence of corruption, bias, and state-funded violence.

chitak166 ,

There are crazy, dangerous people in the world. If you can’t fight and you don’t own a gun, you are at the mercy of others to protect you.

Nothing about this is anecdotal.

YeeterPan ,

You’re right, it’s a broad generalization followed by a fear-based assumption.

That you segued into with an anecdote.

chitak166 ,

Okay.

masquenox ,

Just saw a video on

Is this the video you saw?

There are crazy, dangerous people in the world.

Yes. And they become a whole lot more dangerous once they get a badge.

No, Clyde… there is no such thing as a “good” cop.

chitak166 ,

Okay. Call up your friend who can’t fight and doesn’t own a gun to protect you when someone wants something you have.

YeeterPan ,

Do you think cops can teleport or something

chitak166 ,

No, that’s why we should also have the means to defend ourselves. It doesn’t make sense to hate cops while you’re incapable of defending yourself.

Funny how you completely ignore that part of my argument, lol.

steveman_ha , (edited )

What if I’m physically disabled? Which literally everyone is, in relation to a stronger individual or group (and there’s literally always someone/something bigger than you)… Does that mean I don’t have the “right” to be anti-murder, even if the murderer is someone with a badge?

Or maybe there’s a sliding scale, with how much of a position of principle that I’m allowed hold correlating proportionally to how much I can bench or how quickly I can subdue an opponent?

That sounds pretty fascist.

chitak166 ,

Does that mean I don’t have the “right” to be anti-murder

I’m not going to take your bad-faith arguments seriously. Goodbye.

steveman_ha ,

It’s exaggerated to make a point, not a bad-faith argument. Try reading the rest of the comment, boss…

Your position appears to rest on the idea that people who need protection somehow don’t have the right to hold positions of principle against murdering police that in theory might also protect them in some scenario. Idk, it sounds either fascist, or like you really haven’t thought things through enough…

chitak166 ,

Sure.

OceanSoap ,

…isn’t there a way to legally request any video footage? That’s how all those body-cam yt channels get their footage from, by placing requests in. I thought it was a federal law that you can obtain any police cam video.

tgxn ,
@tgxn@lemmy.tgxn.net avatar

Pretty sure that’s USA’s Freedom of information Act.

wildcardology ,

Yes you can request the footage, and they can also bury you in red tape until you give up the request.

greenmarty ,

So many yt channels gotta be buried. Kinda hard to understand why creators would keep doing that, right?

wildcardology ,

Because the footage those auditors have are just 1st amendment other rights violations.

There are worst things the police want buried.

hex_m_hell ,

Depends on your location. Washington has some of the best public records laws in the country. SPD releases all body cam footage when their officers kill someone. Unfortunately it’s deceptively edited and when you request the full footage it takes about 2 years where they tell you every month they’re delaying because of Covid or something.

Police will hide as long as possible and destroy evidence when they can get away with it. SPD has been sued for deleting vehicle footage after public records requests for the footage. Now they just edit the footage to look like there’s nothing to see and hope no one requests the full videos.

agitatedpotato , (edited )

Well you didn’t do something silly like give control over the means of monitoring the police to only the police right? . . . right?

Plopp ,

You bring up a fair point. This should be investigated. In the interest of fairness let the investigation be handled by the police.

JonEFive ,

They’ve investigated themselves and found that everything they’re doing is completely acceptable. Carry on citizen.

ByteWizard ,

In ‘news that was incredibly obvious from the start’…no shit sherlock.

Katana314 ,

If nothing else, the lack of shown footage should be shifting some mindsets about police.

“What a load of criminals complaining about everything. Obviously, our boys in blue would never do anything suspect, as you’ll see now that they can show you footage of their own perfectly orderly arrests.”
“They all keep their cameras off and never turn over body cam footage.”
“B-…huh? But…they’re noble protectors that have nothing to hide…! Why would they…?”

gamermanh ,
@gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Conservatives will literally reply to that with:

Sotimes you gotta rough up the bad guys so they learn not to do it. It’s a cops god given right to sort out the bad apples like that, they just turn the cam off because the LIBRULS would take them over coals for doing gods work

Renacles ,

Conservatives just like seeing police beat up those they disagree with.

YeeterPan ,

Minorities*

HerbalGamer ,
@HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works avatar

same thing

dumpsterlid ,

The violence is the point, not an accident, which is kind of honestly hard to wrap your head around if you are a normal well adjusted human being.

Snapz ,

How many of those same police departments willingly released certain footage though as defense of their own officers in court after careful review and redaction?

hex_m_hell ,

They also send heavily edited videos directly to friendly news agencies, like Fox, and refuse to release the rest of the video.

Rivalarrival , (edited )

Hear me out on this, but I don’t think the public should be seeing most body cam footage. I don’t think anyone should be seeing most bodycam footage, including the officer that shot the video and their department.

When I inform a cop of a crime, I don’t particularly want that conversation released to the general public. While I don’t technically have “privacy” while providing such a tip, I don’t think it unreasonable that my identity and information should be held in fairly strict confidence.

Body cam footage isn’t supposed to be released under public records requests. Metadata indicating that footage was shot at a particular time and place should be released, but the footage itself should only be accessible with a subpoena. Not even the cop who shot it should have access to that footage without a subpoena. That footage should go into a black hole, and only be pulled out with judicial oversight. Only the metadata should be widely available, to inform potential complainants of what video they can subpoena.

The video should be easily accessible to complainants, plaintiffs, or defendants through subpoena, but that’s about it.

At the same time, I think a body camera should serve as an officer’s time clock. They should only be paid while their camera is turned on, and they should not be entitled to any privileges, powers, or protections afforded to law enforcement officers (especially including qualified immunity) while scheduled to work, but not on camera.

captainlezbian ,

I agree though I’ll add another group: Internal Affairs officers. If a cop has been accused of habitual wrongdoing I want IA to have easy access to it.

That said the current problem is that even on camera they have a habit of intentionally blocking its view.

Maggoty ,

Then they should be fired and charged with obstructing an investigation and destroying evidence.

Until there’s actual accountability the police won’t change.

Rivalarrival ,

IA has access by way of a subpoena. They can present allegations or a complaint, same as anyone else, and request access to all related evidence. They shouldn’t be going fishing. They should need some sort of justification before they should be allowed to pull tape.

pete_the_cat ,

The problem with that is you’re relying on these people to be honest, which we know is a huge problem.

Rivalarrival ,

That’s the exact problem I am trying to address.

The main issue I see is that the officer does deserve some degree of privacy while on the job. Not much, but some sensible degree.

Think about the worst micromanaging supervisor you ever had. Now, give him access to watch a feed from your body camera, observing every move you make throughout the entire day.

I wouldn’t work under those conditions. The only person I can think of who would willingly work under such working conditions would be a completely anal retentive stickler for every rule. That’s not the kind of cop I want working in my community.

So, if I want a good cop to keep his camera on and collecting evidence against him, yet not be subjected to an unreasonable, intrusive degree of micromanaging supervision, I have to take away his supervisor’s authority to arbitrarily view his camera footage.

So, he only gets paid if he turns on his camera. He only gets qualified immunity for his actions if his camera is on. He only gets to exercise law enforcement authority if he has his camera on. But, he is protected because his video can’t be used for administrative purposes.

His honesty - or lack thereof - is no longer relevant to his camera usage.

pete_the_cat ,

Why do they deserve job privacy? They’re public officials that we pay for.

Your comparison of a Micromanaging supervisor isn’t accurate IMO because I doubt that the supervisor doesn’t care about 90% of the cop’s activities. I think they’re also only triggered to record in certain circumstances. The public shouldn’t have free access to all recordings at the drop of a hat, but if a relative of someone involved has a request to see evidence they shouldn’t be able to be blocked by cops.

Rivalarrival ,

Why do they deserve job privacy? They’re public officials that we pay for.

…

The public shouldn’t have free access to all recordings at the drop of a hat,

Those two statements are contradictory.

Any rebuttal I give for the first will be an explanation of the second. Since you have conceded the second, whatever explanation you use to justify your concession can be considered my rebuttal for the first.

If that doesn’t seem to make sense to you, please expand and clarify what you mean by that second statement.

but if a relative of someone involved has a request to see evidence they shouldn’t be able to be blocked by cops.

What part of my proposal do you believe allows police to block a request to see evidence?

If you understood what a subpoena is, you would not be arguing that my proposal allows cops to block anything. My proposal requires cops to record far more than they currently do, and it provides much broader access to that video than we currently have.

Your comparison of a Micromanaging supervisor isn’t accurate IMO because I doubt that the supervisor doesn’t care about 90% of the cop’s activities.

I don’t want to work for a supervisor who has the ability to crawl that far up my ass. I don’t want any of my co-workers, superiors, or subordinates to work for supervisors who are allowed to crawl that far up their subordinate’s asses.

I believe the only person who can reliably thrive with a supervisor possessing such capability is an anal retentive, nightmarish, super-Karen. Someone who moves to a neighborhood because of their nightmare HOA rather than in spite of it. An asshole. A prick. An authoritarian nightmare of a person who should never have any degree of authority over any other person ever. And I believe that such a person will tend to gravitate to supervisory and management positions in law enforcement.

I want cops who won’t tolerate that sort of workplace harassment. I want cops who recognize the need for tolerance and compassion, where the law doesn’t necessarily obligate them to provide it. I want the cops patrolling my neighborhood to be reasonable, rational people; the kind of people who buy lemonade from a kid’s stand, and threaten a nosy Karen who tries to shut down that stand.

I want the kind of cops who would need to be protected from an intrusive asshole supervisor, not the kind of people who will become intrusive asshole supervisors.

Syrc ,

A police victim’s family definitely has the right to see the footage, imo. Otherwise they can just mark everything as “accidental” or “unavoidable” like it already happens.

Rivalarrival ,

A police victim’s family does, indeed, have the right to the video. As complainants. The video will be subpoenaed as part of the investigation that they demand.

The process by which the family gets access to the video is the exact one I described.

Syrc ,

I think that already requires some legal knowledge poor families might not have. I’m not American so I don’t know the procedure, correct me if I’m wrong, but issuing a subpoena doesn’t feel like an easy thing from what I read.

Rivalarrival ,

I can see why you would think that, but that’s really not the case. What I’m explaining is more a technicality than anything.

The family thinks the police did something wrong. They express that belief to someone. That someone is an investigator. It might be a prosecutor, it might be an attorney, it might be the executor of the deceased’s estate, or a victim’s advocate, or their insurance agent, or the sheriff, or the FBI… It might first go to the press or a family friend, but it is going to quickly be referred to some investigator or another. (This is all assuming the family isn’t investigating directly; they certainly have the right to conduct the investigation themselves, and file a motion for a subpoena)

The investigator(s) assigned to the case will have need for all the evidence, and they will be the ones drafting the subpoena. The family can request the video from the investigator, or subpoena it directly, but the video will only be released with a subpoena.

Let me put it a different way:

“I am a family member of the deceased” is not enough to get the video.

“I am a family member of the deceased, and I think their death was suspicious” is enough to get a subpoena, and thus the video.

Syrc ,

That’s reassuring, but then I’m confused by this:

In 79 of those deaths, ProPublica confirmed that body-worn camera video exists. But more than a year later, authorities or victims’ families had released the footage of only 33 incidents.

ProPublica’s review shows that withholding body-worn camera footage from the public has become so entrenched in some cities that even pleas from victims’ families don’t serve to shake the video loose.

If getting the footage is relatively easy, why can’t those videos be released even if the families want it? Am I misreading it and is the situation more “families have the video, but not the clearance to show it to the public”?

Rivalarrival ,

First, I described what I think the law should be, not what the law actually is. Under the current law, authorities are free to release the videos to the public for any reason. Under current law, families are free to release the videos to the public for any reason.

Second, ProPublica went to lengths to obfuscate the issue. The only videos that families aren’t being allowed to release to the general public are those that are still under investigation. Charges can still be filed, and a jury constituted to determine the facts of a case. Releasing a video to the public can contaminate the jury pool, and prevent the family from getting justice.

Third, ProPublica only distinguishes between families who have and have not released videos. They do not ask whether a family wants such a video released. I can imagine plenty of circumstances where a family would not want the public to see how their loved one died.

Syrc ,

Okay, I missed the first point before, thanks.

So about the second one, you’re saying that those videos “even pleas from victims’ families don’t serve to shake loose” are all under investigation and the family can see them, but are forbidden from releasing them to the public because it would be detrimental to the process?

Rivalarrival ,

To the best of my knowledge, that is reasonably accurate. Note that I don’t have specific knowledge of every single case: my claim is based on my general understanding of investigative procedure. The ProPublica article quietly mentions ongoing investigations as the reason why a video is not being released, but did not adequately explain either that this is routine procedure or the reason why such a procedure is necessary and proper.

weeeeum ,

Finally someone with a reasonable response. The other day I saw a very mentally ill woman attempt to stab a police officer and had to be shot.

I would never want myself, family member or loved one to be seen like that.

Same with drug overdoses or a number of other emergencies.

Mango ,

Your feelings matter dramatically less than society’s ability to keep police in line. If you wanna close your eyes, go ahead. Don’t close mine.

weeeeum ,

This is a point I’m making because many feel this way about close loved ones, and not wanting tons of strangers and weirdos watching. Basic dignity for the deceased. That being said this information shouldn’t be completely restricted and be accessible via the American freedom of information act.

All of this extremely personal footage shouldn’t be dumped to the public for everyone to see, only accessible when suspected of suspicious activity or other officer/authority misconduct, with the freedom of information act mentioned precisely.

Mango ,

There’s nothing personal or even reasonable expectation of privacy about what you described. Deal with some embarrassment. Truth and accountability matters more.

CaptainProton ,

The problem there is that neither political party can reconcile this untrustworthiness of police with in their party line.

I think to some degree this is tripped up by the parties positions on guns: Republican party messaging is pro-cop, but cannot trust police so much that it undermines the pro-gun position that you cannot actually trust police to be the only ones capable of protecting you. Conversely Democrat party’s messaging sort of distrusts police, but cannot openly distrust them to a degree that reconciles with actually NOT trusting them to be your only line of defense as it undermines this core political position that it is wrong for citizens to have the means for armed self-defense.

Rivalarrival ,

I disagree. Both parties want the objective viewpoint that cameras provide. Democrats primarily out of distrust of cops; Republicans out of distrust of the general public.

Cops generally want cameras, but don’t want to be subjected to micromanaging and administrative abuse.

Mango ,

Absolutely not. That defeats the entire purpose. Foia requests should 100% be answered.

Rivalarrival ,

An officer wears a body camera. A confidential informant against the mafia runs up to him in the street and starts talking to him.

A mafia lawyer files a FOIA request for the body camera video of every officer in the department.

Should the department comply with this FOIA request, give up the video and expose the informant to the mafia?

Should the officer be allowed to leave his camera off throughout the day, so as to avoid creating a record that he would be forced to turn over?

Suppose I were to SWAT you. I spoof your number, call the police, tell them I’m you, get them to raid “my” house. They get all geared up, turn in their cameras, raid your house, discover it was a prank. Should I, or anyone I tell, now be allowed to file a FOIA request for their video footage, and publish it “for the lulz”?

The idealistic, absolute position you took here would be ripe for abuse.

I want those cameras running all day long. They should be incorporated into the officer’s badge, and have no “off” setting. It should be recording from the time they take it off the charger at the start of their shift, and should keep running until they put it back on the charger after their shift.

The only way that level of intrusiveness is feasible is if nobody - and I mean nobody - can view that video without a warrant or a subpoena.

Mango ,

Obviously that’s not an artist situation. Easy appendage to the law. Arrests can’t be done with cameras off and turning a camera off should automatically be logged. Therefore a cup who presses the button to turn one off before an arrest should be subject to firing and prosecution. Pressing the button before a your convo with an informant should be no big deal.

Welcome to nuance. It’s where we don’t blanket accept manipulation and bullying just to avoid a particular specific scenario included in the blanket.

Also yeah, why shouldn’t a SWAT be recorded and subject to request?

We also can’t rule out technical failure. That’s why they should be tamper resistant and have a log for button presses, GPS data, and automatically report. I don’t wanna see a cop be prosecuted because some tech fucked up on them.

Rivalarrival ,

Also yeah, why shouldn’t a SWAT be recorded and subject to request?

You failed to comprehend that situation. You do not appear to understand the concept of “swatting” if you believe it even remotely reasonable to release that camera footage.

Humans are notoriously bad at consistently following requirements. If your system requires extensive human interaction in real time, your system will also require tolerance for mistakes that humans consistently make when given only split seconds to consider their decisions. The exemplar scenarios I presented demand significantly more thought and consideration than a single officer’s quick decision as to whether or not to record. Cases should not succeed or fail, and confidence should not be kept or broken on a single officer’s split second decision as to whether his camera should be on or off at a particular moment.

With your system, cameras will occasionally be off when they should be on. That’s just human fallibility. No amount of punishment will ever prevent an honest mistake.

We can’t get footage if it was never recorded, so we should err on the side of creating the recording. But, we cannot allow the existence of a recording to create unnecessary harm, either to the officer or to members of the public.

We don’t need to see any video where there is no suspicion of wrongdoing. When there is a suspicion, we need that camera to have been on. My approach systematically solves both problems; your approach does not.

duffman ,

I had to file a report to an officer against a family member. Definitely would suck if that went public for some reason.

pinkdrunkenelephants ,

It’s almost like you can’t force people to try to fix an irrevocably broken system because you’re afraid of living without it

It’s almost like we should have overthrown them or something

It’s almost like everyone was propagandized into accepting band aid solutions and refused to listen when they were told it wouldn’t work

nakilia ,

The reform’s intention to increase accountability is the source of the issue. However, there will be no accountability and no real reform if the public cannot view the video and police are allowed to “accidentally” turn off their body cams or “oopsie woopsie I deleted the footage” after breaking the law. amanda the adventurer

phoenixz ,

Fuck off with your spam links

ICastFist ,
@ICastFist@programming.dev avatar

Looks like a direct copypaste of another comment down below, from SuperDuper, just to put that link at the end.

AnUnusualRelic ,
@AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world avatar
  • Claim that reform will do thing.
  • Reform fails to do thing.
  • Cries of surprise from assembly.
originalucifer ,
@originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com avatar

are you saying police cams are useless, or that the police are purposefully obstructing justice by blocking the footage. im confused

girlfreddy OP ,

Your second question solves the first.

DacoTaco ,
@DacoTaco@lemmy.world avatar

No, no it doesnt. The first question questions wether body cams are useful, the second questions wether people are flawed.

If question 1 has an awnser of “yes” ( which it does ), than that means they can be used as ammunition in a case against the police or officers in question in what they did, even if the footage goes “missing”. It puts the responsability on the police infrastructure.

girlfreddy OP ,

Incorrect.

Police are purposefully obstructing justice by blocking the footage (making) police cams useless.

captainlezbian ,

Yeah and there’s an easy solution here: presume that the officer is in the wrong when no body cam footage is able to verify their story. All it takes is actual accountability and forcing the police to see these tools as aiding them in proving their innocence instead of looking to prove their guilt.

And yeah it’ll take a lot of cops in prison to click

DacoTaco ,
@DacoTaco@lemmy.world avatar

^ exactly what i was getting at :)

BestBouclettes ,

Usually the reform doesn’t really fail, it does exactly what it’s supposed to do. The issue is how the reform is made or formulated in the first place.

superduperenigma ,

The problem is that the reform was supposed to add accountability. But if the public can’t access the footage and police are free to “accidentally” turn their bodycams off before or “oopsie woopsie I deleted the footage” after they break the law there’s zero accountability, and therefore no meaningful reform.

originalucifer ,
@originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com avatar

we get it. cops are cowards. why else would this be one of the only countries where officers are lethally armed around the clock. cowards.

TechNerdWizard42 ,

And cowardice bred from ignorance and stupidity. It’s not even that dangerous of a job comparatively. And many including myself believe it would be even less dangerous if they stopped arming themselves like they’re going to war.

girlfreddy OP ,

It would be nice if counties stopped allowing them to buy armoured vehicles and … this is a big one … gave every one of them a psych eval prior to hiring.

PriorityMotif ,
@PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

They need a third party psychological deprogramming once per year. They’re hired and paid based on the fact that they won’t question the way they enforce laws and the tactics that they use.

ElJefe ,

Police forces are working exactly as intended. The reason they aren’t changing is because they protect the ruling class by intimidating the public. As long as the ruling class is protected, there will be no reason to fund psych evals; there will be no reason to hire decent human beings.

captainlezbian ,

Yeah there’s no other reason a nation as peaceful within its borders as ours would provide its police with fucking mraps

TheFriar ,

They need to not exist as we understand police.

MonsiuerPatEBrown ,

cops should be tested for steroid use randomly and monthly.

My guess as long as 320 million people have 434 million legal firearms the cops are not going to give theirs up either.

Maggoty ,

There’s a lot of things we need to do if we want police officers to remain armed.

  1. Require officers to always patrol in doubles or more. (Many of the police involved shootings are panic shootings. A buddy who can help would reduce this.)
  2. Require less than lethal force at least be attempted unless you’re already getting shot at. (Currently police can shoot you if you twitch wrong or just have an object in plain sight like a gun, knife, or cellphone. We know this because they’ve done it and had no reprecussions. So now they lose the shoot first privilege.)
  3. Ban them from conducting traffic stops. Stand up an unarmed traffic specific force that doesn’t have the authority to arrest anyone or run warrants. They are specifically for civil traffic enforcement. (Many police involved shootings stem from stupid things like something hanging from the mirror or even just going 10 over the limit.) To be clear, you’d still need police officers for things like DUI. Felony speeding and such can be handled with cameras and actually taking cars away. Yes that’s harsh in the US, but see how fast people decide it’s not worth their car to go faster. (And yes speed is directly related to more accidents and fatalities in those accidents.)
  4. Required marksmanship and tactical training. You don’t get to carry a gun you haven’t certified in and certification is a bit more intense than beer and bullets with your buddies at the range. If you want to tell us you’re constantly at war then bring in some combat infantry veterans to design your certification program. Something like 90% hit rate on random targets while your heart is in the cardio zone and someone is randomly setting off artillery simulators. Yes that’s well above what the Army or Marines officially requires but you keep telling us how highly trained you are and how dangerous your job is. Prove it with the drills we did before combat deployments.
  5. Always on cameras with gunshot detectors. When the detector goes off it automatically starts uploading a feed to the ACLU. If your camera is conveniently blocked then not only do you not get qualified immunity but it’s also a sentence enhancement if you’re convicted and charges for destroying evidence.

We act like there’s a binary solution to the problem of police accountability. But it doesn’t have to be binary. The only unacceptable thing at this point is to continue allowing police to have all the power and none of the accountability.

DacoTaco , (edited )
@DacoTaco@lemmy.world avatar

This is a bullshit comment.
Dont get me wrong, im not saying they arent cowards or whatever, but only country where cops are lethally armed? Honey, thats not the reason your cops are snowflakes lol.
Here in my country cops wear guns as well (though in a holder that has to be at all times closed unless needed) yet here we are… With as good as 0 “accidental” deaths by cops.

Therefor, your comment makes no sense.

originalucifer ,
@originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com avatar

i didnt say only

DacoTaco ,
@DacoTaco@lemmy.world avatar

Fair, that you didnt, I misread that part by the looks of it!

That said, i think my point stands that being armed has nothing to do with the issue. And before anyone calls me a gun loving guy, i dont like guns at all tbh

originalucifer ,
@originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com avatar

do you feel your every day police officer should require lethal armament at all times or do you possibly feel (as i clearly do) that other countries have proven this isnt a requirement?

girlfreddy OP ,

The problem is that other nations don’t have a 2nd Amendment that guarantees the right to bear arms.

originalucifer ,
@originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com avatar

yeah, thats not really what im getting at.

i understand the functional difficulty in weapons control in a country where they are en-codified, but that doesnt mean we cant point out the vulgarity of these human killing devices.

it reminds me of a recent rick n morty episode where they couldnt physically stop people addicted to a thing, but they were able to completely dissuade their addiction by forcing them to see the grossness of their actions.

DacoTaco ,
@DacoTaco@lemmy.world avatar

I feel like it all depends on the country, or even environment. If it is a hostile area they should be equipped to deal with it. However, with this i assume that the police and/or officer take full responsability IF things go bad. We are all humans, and mistakes can happen, but if a gun is pulled, it should be a very bad scenario and a last resort.

Like all things, i dont think its just black and white. Life aint like that

originalucifer ,
@originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com avatar

thats a great point. im talkin about the good ol u.s. here. ive worked with cops. most will tell you, you know how many times they use their weapons? never. most never fire shots on duty.

and its true, the stats bear out.. most united states police officers have never fired their weapon on duty.

perfect, then you dont need that gun.

azertyfun ,

You said “one of the only”.

The UK is the only Western country I know of where cops don’t normally carry a firearm. It’s a very distinctive feature of the UK police, not the default or something that makes the US stand out. Even in Scandinavia the cops armed.

The differences between the US and the rest of the developed world lie elsewhere, in a multitude of unaddressed systemic issues.

originalucifer ,
@originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com avatar

yep, my mistake. thank you!

TheGrandNagus ,

Yup, and not only that, police keep getting polled in the UK and they keep saying they don’t want guns

hh93 ,

why else would this be one of the only countries where officers are lethally armed around the clock

Because it’s also the only country where many citizens are lethally armed around the clock I’d guess

If you stop a random person in traffic in Europe for routine control then it’s extremely unlikely that they have a gun in their car and even less likely that they will pull it on you.

If you are permanently having to think about scenarios where random people pull a gun on you because it’s not a very unlikely situation to happen then it’s not unreasonable to expect certain paranoia to start to form…

While the stats for “people killed by police” are always shown around I’d guess that the “police killed by citizens” also is much higher in the US.

Gun control is the only solution that even has a chance to remove this spiralling violence of trigger happy cops imho

charonn0 ,
@charonn0@startrek.website avatar

Google tells me that less than 2% of Americans carry a gun.

hh93 ,

I’d guess a police officer is seeing more than 50 random people a day though which makes it a daily occurrence to be in contact with people carrying which actually strengthens my point

charonn0 ,
@charonn0@startrek.website avatar

A cashier at Taco Bell sees more than that.

steveman_ha ,

You’d think at some point they’d adapt to the stress of such a situation (especially since they literally signed up for it, and ostensibly trained for it), so that they can handle it effectively without murdering others, though…

Soldiers fighting wars in hostile countries are (in theory) held to higher standards in this way.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •