Officers viewed footage showing woman’s groin without valid reason, but avoided misconduct hearings.

Officers viewed footage showing woman’s groin without valid reason, but avoided misconduct hearings.

  • Skye
    1•5 months ago

    BTW I agree with you. The point you actually should have brought up is that the moment someone blurs part of the footage, its entire validity as proof of the actual event goes out the window.

    The moment it gets put into an editing software, any number of changes can be made to make any point conceivable.

    I think a middle ground approach would be to defacto give access to the footage to the defendants in the case but not the general public.

    • @Rivalarrival
      0•5 months ago

      I think a middle ground approach would be to defacto give access to the footage to the defendants in the case but not the general public.

      That’s pretty much what I’m talking about, but not just defendants, but also plaintiffs and complainants. Cops and prosecutors can claim the video is evidence of a crime, and subpoena it for evidence. A citizen can claim the video is evidence of the cop’s wrongdoing, and subpoena it for evidence. Bodycam videos should not be subject to FOIA requests. They should only be available by court order.

      The metadata - date, time, location - should be public record. Everyone should know if a video was recorded, so we can verify officers are actually making the records they are supposed to be making, and aren’t deleting them after the fact.