Cameras. They fucking hate body cameras. When it clears them of wrongdoing, they have the video ready. When they ‘accidentally’ shoot a guy nine times in the back of the head, video seems to be missing.
Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops
NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I get the impression that the cops are about to hate facial recognition all of the sudden, for no particular reason
bytesonbike@discuss.online 1 day ago
pyre@lemmy.world 1 day ago
easily solvable problem: losing the footage is indication of guilt. you shoot someone, you better have it ready. it malfunctioned, better have a partner who has theirs ready. if no one has footageit’s used as evidence of guilt.
of course pussy ass lawmakers will never do that.
knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
I believe having lack of evidence being the evidence for a crime is problematic, but it sure is evidence enough that they aren’t fit for their job and they should immediately lose it. Everyone Including the supervisor who failed to run the team properly.
kreskin@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Hard agree. Its a non negotiable part of the job. I dont know that it would work to say absense of footage is evidence of wrongdoing, but its definitely enough to fire someone. Accountability would keep cops in line. Currently there is VERY little real systematic accountability for cops, in any situation.
pyre@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
first of all it’s not lack of evidence, it is evidence itself. if the camera is not working that’s tampering with evidence and is a good indication of guilt.
second of all if you can have laws like felony murder you can sure as shit have this. if you commit a felony (like a robbery), don’t hurt anyone, and a cop murders a random person in response because they’re trigger happy pigs, you can be held responsible for the murder as if you committed it yourself.
my suggestion is far more reasonable compared to that: if you kill someone you better have evidence that it wasn’t foul play because guess what that’s what everyone needs to do. we don’t just allow people to kill and go free, cops shouldn’t be exempt.
MisterFrog@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Should be at least streamed to a server not controlled by the police, including things like charge levels so they can’t claim “oh whoops, it ran out of charge!”. A specific organisation within the judiciary, perhaps?
This way they’re gonna need to get far more creative in concealing video.
And if you’re found to do something that is concealing evidence, well that’s a crime by itself
Tiger666@lemmy.ca 15 hours ago
You misunderstand how the system works. They are all complicit.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 hours ago
Ever wonder why the uh, default cop idle stance, the at ease stance… is each hand up at it’s shoulder, elbows bent, in front of chest?
Because that way they can very, very easily, and casually, bump their chestcam, obsure its view, muffle the sound.
"In all forms of strategy, it is necessary to maintain the combat stance in everyday life and to make your everyday stance your combat stance."
- Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings.
catloaf@lemm.ee 23 hours ago
I heard a bit on NPR over the weekend talking about copaganda. Turns out body cams are beneficial to cops, because they can take that footage and selectively edit and release it to push a certain narrative.
If you’ve ever seen a clip on social media, it often starts a few seconds before the cop hits someone, rarely showing the full sequence of events that led up to that point.
And if they can’t edit the footage to make them look good? “Oops, we didn’t retrieve that footage in time so it was overwritten.”
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Upvoted and agreed, not least because I just learned that “all of the sudden,” while at present a nonstandard variant of “all of a sudden,” has valid history.
And of course it doesn’t matter in this casual context!
But in formal writing, in this era, using “a” will avoid distracting the reader from your main point.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
“All of the sudden” is only valid because it’s so commonly (incorrectly) used. Much as it annoys me, that’s just how language works.
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
“of the sudden” (1570) actually predates “of a sudden” (Shakespeare) according to my OED as squinted at through the nifty magnifying glass. But it’s been considered obsolete for a long time despite having all of a sudden experienced a resurgence.
TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 1 day ago
Can’t we just embrace adverbification and agree to write “suddenly”?
samus12345@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
People aren’t saying it because they’re language scholars, it’s because they misheard the proper modern usage. So it goes for many language shifts.
macaw_dean_settle@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Only if you allow the ignorant to remain uncorrected.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Erin: “All of the sudden, I was awake.”
Bloomcole@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Non-Anglo here.
Totally not distracted bcs my brain autocorrected it to “all of a sudden” without even noticing.
A bit like “It deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are”
Also never seen/heard the “the” variant. (Well consciously that is).macaw_dean_settle@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Does not have to be Before Christ.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 day ago
There’s a reason ICE conceal their faces.
They know what they’re doing is wrong and don’t want to be held accountable if their fascist rule collapses.
ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 hours ago
So just use one too and blend in. Put on a stupid Trump or racist hat, and if you are not white, put on gloves. Then surround them.
Arcka@midwest.social 1 day ago
So which cameras can be used to overcome normal face coverings? piped.video/watch?v=yRFeS72IM6M
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 day ago
Is that why the protestors where them too?
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 day ago
Protestors or vandals and rioters?
The former: to prevent government persecution and unfair retaliation. The latter: yes.
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 day ago
Yes.
Why would they face persecution if they did nothing wrong!?
masterofn001@lemmy.ca 22 hours ago
Please post the entirety of your online history.
Surely there’s no reason to hide.
Whether what you’ve done is entirely legal (or not) authoritariaism doesn’t care.
What is done in a free society is punished by small men with anger control issues.
What you may find reasonable to say in a free society, could, under a government opposed to free expression, land you in el Segundo - without your wallet.
The gestapo hide their faces because they know what they do is wrong, and to hide from justice.
People who protest or simply appreciate privacy do so because they understand the potential for retribution and being disappeared.
Ulrich@feddit.org 22 hours ago
…we’re talking about hiding though
That goes both ways. That was my entire point.