- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 11,655
- Reaction score
- 3,612
- Location
- WA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Body camera footage of O’Neal’s shooting would make the legality of the killing easier to determine. The Supreme Court ruled in Tennessee v. Garner (1985) that a police officer cannot use lethal force on a fleeing suspect unless “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
O’Neal’s mother has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, alleging that her son was killed “without legal justification.”
'The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has proposed one such policy. Under its body camera policy, if an officer fails to activate his camera or interferes with the footage the following policies kick in:1. Direct disciplinary action against the individual officer.3. The adoption of rebuttable evidentiary presumptions on behalf of civil plaintiffs suing the government, police department and/or officers for damages based on police misconduct. The presumptions should be rebuttable by other, contrary evidence or by proof of exigent circumstances that made compliance impossible.'
2. The adoption of rebuttable evidentiary presumptions in favor of criminal defendants who claim exculpatory evidence was not captured or was destroyed.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has proposed one such policy. Under its body camera policy, if an officer fails to activate his camera or interferes with the footage the following policies kick in:
1. Direct disciplinary action against the individual officer.
2. The adoption of rebuttable evidentiary presumptions in favor of criminal defendants who claim exculpatory evidence was not captured or was destroyed.
3. The adoption of rebuttable evidentiary presumptions on behalf of civil plaintiffs suing the government, police department and/or officers for damages based on police misconduct. The presumptions should be rebuttable by other, contrary evidence or by proof of exigent circumstances that made compliance impossible.'
Maybe what we should do is send camera crews out with cops. Maybe cops shouldn't be allowed to engage anyone without at least three angles covered by video. Hell, maybe cops should just assume that anyone who call in a complaint against someone else is full of **** and they just shouldn't respond at all.:roll:
I do not, cameras are not the end all be all, and it is perfectly reasonable to accept testimony of a police officer over the speculation of the suspects mother in court.When Cops Who Kill Leave Their Body Cameras Turned Off
Cops that end up with missing body cam footage (accident or not) should have HUGE penalties to their testimony and credence. I agree with this harshness.
When Cops Who Kill Leave Their Body Cameras Turned Off
Cops that end up with missing body cam footage (accident or not) should have HUGE penalties to their testimony and credence. I agree with this harshness.
What is the body-cam malfunctions? Screw the cop anyway?
Maybe what we should do is send camera crews out with cops. Maybe cops shouldn't be allowed to engage anyone without at least three angles covered by video. Hell, maybe cops should just assume that anyone who call in a complaint against someone else is full of **** and they just shouldn't respond at all.:roll:
And we can televise the results...
We can call the show COPS.
I do not, cameras are not the end all be all, and it is perfectly reasonable to accept testimony of a police officer over the speculation of the suspects mother in court.
What is the body-cam malfunctions? Screw the cop anyway?
What is the body-cam malfunctions? Screw the cop anyway?
Exactly. The camera gets ripped off the cops chest in a fight, the perp goes free and the cop gets hooked up. Hooray for America!
OR.... the cops could make sure their body and dash cameras are on. How about we just use common sense?
Exactly. The camera gets ripped off the cops chest in a fight, the perp goes free and the cop gets hooked up. Hooray for America!
Common sense would dictate that we use the evidence available.
Punishing cops because their camera wasn't working is absurd. We already expect cops to be mind readers, mental heath counselors, social welfare professionals, family counselors, etc. It's unrealistic and, frankly, damaging to society. In many parts of this country teachers are expected to baby sit kids when they're in school and cops are expected to baby sit them when they're not in school. In fact, the only people NOT expected to take care of the kids are their parents. To hell with that.
What we've seen so far from all these cop cameras is that sometimes they provide some additional perspective and sometimes they don't. They're not a bad tool but they also are no panacea and mandating their use or worse, punishing cops for not using them, is unreasonable.
Or maybe instead of all this hyperbolic nonsense, they should have their video cams turned on?Maybe what we should do is send camera crews out with cops. Maybe cops shouldn't be allowed to engage anyone without at least three angles covered by video. Hell, maybe cops should just assume that anyone who call in a complaint against someone else is full of **** and they just shouldn't respond at all.:roll:
Or maybe instead of all this hyperbolic nonsense, they should have their video cams turned on?
And streaming, preferably?
Yeah, what is the problem with that? IT benefits everybody. They have shown that body cams reduce violent encounters between police and suspect as well...
Here's how I see it:Yeah, what is the problem with that? IT benefits everybody. They have shown that body cams reduce violent encounters between police and suspect as well...
If the body-cam shows a scuffle before hand...then it might be a reasonable defense that it wasn't the cops fault that the body camera fell off...or malfunctioned. If it was the later that could easily be proven by examining the body-camera itself. If was the former then the body-cam would still show what led up to the altercation.
And body cams protect LEO's from false claims of assault.
Here's how I see it:
Whenever complicated arguments get made against simple solutions, I suspect ulterior motive. And I'm usually right.
Interfering with Police mandated policy and that is your answer. ShamefulMaybe what we should do is send camera crews out with cops. Maybe cops shouldn't be allowed to engage anyone without at least three angles covered by video. Hell, maybe cops should just assume that anyone who call in a complaint against someone else is full of **** and they just shouldn't respond at all.:roll:
Or maybe instead of all this hyperbolic nonsense, they should have their video cams turned on?
And streaming, preferably?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?