: Politics and Religion Discussion : Re: additional comment

DA_Flex 1995 reads

posted 12 years ago

1 / 12

Now that everyone is believing that body cameras are now essential to police work in the future, we need to start considering legislation to ensure that these images are protected, remain in the public domain, ensure privacy of citizens that may be filmed and not charged with a crime and finally how these video shall be used in the courts. I support the following:

1. If the police have a video and are expected to have a video of a criminal interaction, if this video becomes damaged or missing or otherwise, then the missing evidence is to be automatically presumed to support the assertions of the defendant. There have been several incidents where either body cameras, dash cams have supposedly failed, forgotten to be turned on, or turned on after the fact or even lost. By automatically declaring the advantage to the defendant, this will force authorities to ensure video and audio documtation is preserved, protected and made available to the defendant

2. All video that that is collected must be preserved for a reasonable period of time. Any video that is used in Crimean prosecutions shall be preserved indefinitely unless charges are dropped.

3. All video that is collected is available to the public domain during the preservation period. There are too many instances where police collects video information as evidence but refuses to make it available tot the public, particularly in investigations that involve excessive force allegations.

We need to ensure that police use this technology properly and the public is protected.

JackDunphy 310 reads

posted 12 years ago

2 / 12

Huh? The LACK of evidence would already benefit the defendant.

Why in the world would you want a non event, a case where evidence was NOT gathered, to benefit EITHER side???

In your world, a murderer could get released to kill again b/c there was a legitimate camera malfunction.

That's just fkin insane.

marikod 1 Reviews 347 reads

posted 12 years ago

3 / 12

So in police shootings where the officer is indicted, he would get

A presumption that the shooting was justified if the video was missing. Hmm you may be on to something here DA.

DA_Flex 364 reads

posted 12 years ago

4 / 12

Re: Huh? The LACK of evidence would already benefit the defendant.

I disagree with your assessment. You assume that police wouldn't have other witnesses or evidence to present to a judge or jury. All this proposal would do, is take one piece of evidence that should have been protected by the authorities, and have it favor the defendant or the plaintiff in a civil suit against the police. There have been several documented cases where police have stated that dash cams have failed simultaneously on multiple vehicles. It's certainly a possibility, but highly unlikely. This would provide a disincentive for this type of suspect behavior. If you would have taken the time to follow the link I provided, you would see this is a common problem within our police forces.

Posted By: JackDunphy

Why in the world would you want a non event, a case where evidence was NOT gathered, to benefit EITHER side???

In your world, a murderer could get released to kill again b/c there was a legitimate camera malfunction.

That's just fkin insane.

JohnyComeAlready 345 reads

posted 12 years ago

5 / 12

I agree.

Posted By: JackDunphy

Why in the world would you want a non event, a case where evidence was NOT gathered, to benefit EITHER side???

In your world, a murderer could get released to kill again b/c there was a legitimate camera malfunction.

That's just fkin insane.

This will only cost the tax payer money.

I'm sure the "pro" side will insit thst cop-cam will only help the innocent and falsely accused.

YFR!

DA_Flex 346 reads

posted 12 years ago

6 / 12

Re: So in police shootings where the officer is indicted, he would get

Really, the only person that has disparaged in the Ferguson incident is Michael Brown. Police enthusiastically released a video that assassinated the character of now dead man in an unrelated incident. Your thought are worrisome and frustrating. All my proposal would do, which supported by several in the legal community, would be an incentive for police to protect the video they record. It really a simple concept...or is it still a little too complex for the conservative?

Posted By: marikod

A presumption that the shooting was justified if the video was missing. Hmm you may be on to something here DA.

DA_Flex 389 reads

posted 12 years ago

7 / 12

Since you are too busy to read the link I've provided

I've cut a snippet that perfectly illustrates my point. This happened in Maryland.

"This is not the first time a police camera in Prince George’s County has malfunctioned at a critical time. In 2007 Andrea McCarren, an investigative reporter for the D.C. TV station WJLA, was pulled over by seven Prince George’s County police cars as she and a cameraman followed a county official in pursuit of a story about misuse of public funds. In a subsequent lawsuit, McCarren claimed police roughed her up during the stop, causing a dislocated shoulder and torn rotator cuff. McCarren won a settlement, but she was never able to obtain video of the incident. Prince George’s County officials say all seven dashboard cameras in the police cruisers coincidentally malfunctioned."

So after reading just this one example, how could you not conclude that legislation that I propose would be needed. Everyone with half a brain knows that police frequently embellish written reports, will lose and manipulate evidence in order to obtain a conviction or justify actions. This isn't anti police, it's just recognition that we need to ensure that authorities need to behave properly. And citizens need to understand that our rights afforded to us within the constitution are not to protect the guilty, but to protect the innocent.

ed2000 31 Reviews 366 reads

posted 12 years ago

8 / 12

Your presumption assumes jurors are too stupid to analyze facts for themselves.

If a camera that normally would have provided additional evidence is not available then it is up to the jury to include such circumstances thus determining for themselves the reliability of the reasons why it is missing. It's all just more evidence to be examined. I'm not denying some jurors and even juries are really stupid, but to codify into the law that jurors are too stupid to analyze facts would set a dangerous precedent

ed2000 31 Reviews 378 reads

posted 12 years ago

9 / 12

You should not assume that anyone who provides an alternate viewpoint to yours is conservative. . .

marikod the conservative. LOL. That's a good one.

JohnyComeAlready 340 reads

posted 12 years ago

10 / 12

additional comment

I believe police officers equipped with body cameras would be worse than the militarization of police agencies. Putting a camera on an officers person, will also give the impression that the agency does not trust the people that they hire.

Posted By: DA_Flex

Now that everyone is believing that body cameras are now essential to police work in the future, we need to start considering legislation to ensure that these images are protected, remain in the public domain, ensure privacy of citizens that may be filmed and not charged with a crime and finally how these video shall be used in the courts. I support the following:

1. If the police have a video and are expected to have a video of a criminal interaction, if this video becomes damaged or missing or otherwise, then the missing evidence is to be automatically presumed to support the assertions of the defendant. There have been several incidents where either body cameras, dash cams have supposedly failed, forgotten to be turned on, or turned on after the fact or even lost. By automatically declaring the advantage to the defendant, this will force authorities to ensure video and audio documtation is preserved, protected and made available to the defendant

2. All video that that is collected must be preserved for a reasonable period of time. Any video that is used in Crimean prosecutions shall be preserved indefinitely unless charges are dropped.

3. All video that is collected is available to the public domain during the preservation period. There are too many instances where police collects video information as evidence but refuses to make it available tot the public, particularly in investigations that involve excessive force allegations.

We need to ensure that police use this technology properly and the public is protected.

DA_Flex 344 reads

posted 12 years ago

11 / 12

Re: additional comment

Posted By: JohnyComeAlready

I believe police officers equipped with body cameras would be worse than the militarization of police agencies. Putting a camera on an officers person, will also give the impression that the agency does not trust the people that they hire.

Posted By: DA_Flex

Now that everyone is believing that body cameras are now essential to police work in the future, we need to start considering legislation to ensure that these images are protected, remain in the public domain, ensure privacy of citizens that may be filmed and not charged with a crime and finally how these video shall be used in the courts. I support the following:

1. If the police have a video and are expected to have a video of a criminal interaction, if this video becomes damaged or missing or otherwise, then the missing evidence is to be automatically presumed to support the assertions of the defendant. There have been several incidents where either body cameras, dash cams have supposedly failed, forgotten to be turned on, or turned on after the fact or even lost. By automatically declaring the advantage to the defendant, this will force authorities to ensure video and audio documtation is preserved, protected and made available to the defendant

2. All video that that is collected must be preserved for a reasonable period of time. Any video that is used in Crimean prosecutions shall be preserved indefinitely unless charges are dropped.

3. All video that is collected is available to the public domain during the preservation period. There are too many instances where police collects video information as evidence but refuses to make it available tot the public, particularly in investigations that involve excessive force allegations.

We need to ensure that police use this technology properly and the public is protected.

JohnyComeAlready 346 reads

posted 12 years ago

12 / 12

Re: additional comment

Don't fuck crazy bitches who call the cops.