• DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 hours ago

    The wealthiest nation on the planet has to abandon accountability to save a few bucks.

    Clown country.

  • notgivingmynametoamachine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Citizens should up their shooting of DEA agents in response. Who’s going to see without the body cam? Seems American institutions need to go back to learning by trial and error.

  • ExLisperA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    Body cams were never a solution to anything. I remember multiple police murders recorded on body cams were the officer was acquitted by the jury. Police murder is basically legal in US*. Recording it doesn’t change anything. As for police brutality in general they simply learned to shout “stop resisting” when beating people up. Without basic accountability the recording are useless.

    *It’s enough if police officer thinks he is in danger to make killing legal. Pretty much if he’s scared he can shoot. Body cams can’t prove he wasn’t scared.

    • Nalivai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Body cams aren’t the solution, but they do help a lot. When cops have zero oversight, they commit way more atrocities, on average.

      • ExLisperA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        15 hours ago

        You should read this: https://prismreports.org/2024/07/16/complex-troubling-history-police-body-cameras/

        "Long before body cameras were introduced to the public and found themselves in mainstream conversations about police reform, they were first peddled to police departments by tech companies and major corporations.

        With body cameras, law enforcement agencies could expand their surveillance capacity, mitigate police brutality lawsuits, create “highly controllable evidence” against the largely poor, largely Black citizens of whom police often seek to capture footage, and quell social unrest by creating “comprehensive digital archives” of attendees at protests for social change"

        “It was the 2014 police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, that would forever change the public conversation around police accountability and allow body cameras to take center stage. Almost immediately, body cameras were no longer being pitched behind closed doors to police departments, but were rather presented to the public as an invaluable tool for police “reform” and increased “transparency.””

        • FrostyCaribou@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I’m curious about the “highly controllable evidence” part. Perhaps this conversation isn’t attainable without getting into vast generalizations, however, in my experience officers generally activate their cameras when they respond to a crime and don’t turn them off until they are no longer investigating the crime. This is generally when the defendant has already been interviewed and is custody in a police vehicle. If there are subsequent interviews, they turn back on their cameras.

          I know my experience is not universal, but body cameras seem to be a great way to maintain transparency in investigations since defendants and prosecutors will both have video/audio of the investigation.

          • ExLisperA
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            In another comment I posted a link to another study that shows police does not provide footage from most of police shootings. Yes, most of the time the camera is recording but most of the time only police can see the footage. That’s what they mean by "highly controllable evidence”. When it exonerates the officer they give to the TV stations in a matter of hours. When it doesn’t they hide it and you have to fight them in courts for years to see it.

        • Pfeffy@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Anyone can record in public at any time anyway. There’s no reason to not have police body cams even if they aren’t as effective as they should be. The police will always have body cameras if they want them, and they don’t want them. If the police don’t want to wear them, that tells me that they probably should even if we need to work on getting public access to the footage.

          • ExLisperA
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            With body cameras, law enforcement agencies could expand their surveillance capacity, mitigate police brutality lawsuits, create “highly controllable evidence” against the largely poor, largely Black citizens of whom police often seek to capture footage, and quell social unrest by creating “comprehensive digital archives” of attendees at protests for social change"

            Did you read this part? It pretty much contradicts everything you said.

            • Pfeffy@lemmy.world
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 hours ago

              Yes, I read it but I don’t see any evidence to think that their stance is correct. Just because somebody writes something doesn’t mean it is correct or even accurate. There’s no citation for anything except one study demonstrating that the footage is not used to convict police officers very often, which is the real problem.

              • ExLisperA
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/research-body-worn-cameras-and-law-enforcement

                “Across these evaluations, researchers looked at a range of outcomes, including use of force, citizen complaints, arrests, and assaults on officers. Four of the body-worn camera programs evaluated were found to have no, limited, or even negative effects.”

                https://cebcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/BWCpaperLumetal.pdf

                “Prosecutors, however, rarely bring cases against the police (Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993), and it remains to be seen whether this will change much as a result of BWCs. In their study of the use of BWCs in the courts, Merola et al. (2016) found that nearly all (93.0%) responding prosecutors’ offices in jurisdictions that use BWCs use them primarily to prosecute citizens. Not surprisingly, 80.0% of responding prosecutors in Merola et al.’s survey support BWC use by the police, and 63.0% feel cameras will assist prosecutors more than defense attorneys”

                I know that probably no amount of research and evidence will change your mind but those are pretty easy to find so I just leave it here for other people to see.

                • Pfeffy@lemmy.world
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  I can’t tell if you are agreeing with me or not. I just said the real problem is that it’s not used to prosecute police officers enough. Are you disagreeing with me citing one study that said four programs potentially had some negative outcome?

                  If body cameras are good for police, why do police not want to wear them?

    • arin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      15 hours ago

      There’s a reason some cops turn off their body cams before certain encounters, it’s because some places do hold them accountable. At least there’s a public record

  • DicJacobus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 day ago

    Mob rule. And not the angry crowd of people type. The Organized Crime type.

    America is going to resemble every 1990s russian gangster’s wet dream in half the time.

  • EstonianGuy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    Well yeah, now they can plant evidence against people opposing the ruling administrations policies.