Body Cameras Were Sold as a Tool of Police Reform. Ten Years Later, Most of the Footage Is Kept From Public View. - eviltoast
There were 101 people killed at the hands of police in June 2022. More than a year later, police had released body-camera footage of only 33 of those killings, ProPublica has found.

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.

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    41·
    11 months ago

    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@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      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@lemmy.today
        1·
        11 months ago

        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.