Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

storymaps.arcgis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 178 posts

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#81

Post by ethbr0 »

pjc50 wrote: post #58
msla wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be contrary to the whole spirit of Federalism. It would be like every EU country having a separate department of internal affairs which reports directly to Brussels, except, perhaps, even more politically inflammatory. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, just noting that there's a big wall in the path of implementing the concept.

The US is a single country with a single military.

> The US is a single country with a single military.

Not... entirely accurate.

Many states possess their own military forces [0], and state National Guard units are dual-chained to both state and national military leadership [1] (in different scenarios).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force#Active_sta...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard#N...

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#82

Post by jellicle »

backtoyoujim wrote: post #10
wombatpm wrote: post #5

If we really want body cameras to work, there needs to be penalties for nonuse. For example lack of body camera removes qualified immunity protections for the officer(s) in question. My personal philosophy is that if called to be on a criminal jury, if the case relies on the officer's testimony and there is no camera, I will return a verdict of not guilty under the justification that the state has failed to prove its…

What we need is for them to have to carry personally paid malpractice insurance that is tied to their access to qualified immunity. And if their camera is off they lose their insurance policy. Then no more access to qualified immunity. Being police is a luxury not a right.

Wouldn't it be easier just to punish and fire rather than creating yet another dysfunctional market?

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#83

Post by LMYahooTFY »

backtoyoujim wrote: post #10
wombatpm wrote: post #5

If we really want body cameras to work, there needs to be penalties for nonuse. For example lack of body camera removes qualified immunity protections for the officer(s) in question. My personal philosophy is that if called to be on a criminal jury, if the case relies on the officer's testimony and there is no camera, I will return a verdict of not guilty under the justification that the state has failed to prove its…

What we need is for them to have to carry personally paid malpractice insurance that is tied to their access to qualified immunity. And if their camera is off they lose their insurance policy. Then no more access to qualified immunity. Being police is a luxury not a right.

>Being police is a luxury not a right.

It's a service, not a luxury.

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#84

Post by mekoka »

dvtrn wrote: post #73
ridaj wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving it up to local voters makes it sound like it's ok for a police dept to misbehave, eg harass minorities or evade accountability, as long as the majority voters in that city/county are ok with it. I think that's a problem and that going to a couple levels in governance (state or federal) makes total sense given the systematic nature of some of the problems.

Leaving it up to local voters makes it sound like it's ok for a police dept to misbehave, eg harass minorities or evade accountability I apologize, but I don't quite get how you arrived at the conclusion you have, specifically this point. Help me out here?

The full sentence went

> Leaving it up to local voters makes it sound like it's ok for a police dept to misbehave, eg harass minorities or evade accountability, as long as the majority voters in that city/county are ok with it.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#85

Post by akira2501 »

wombatpm wrote: post #5

If we really want body cameras to work, there needs to be penalties for nonuse. For example lack of body camera removes qualified immunity protections for the officer(s) in question. My personal philosophy is that if called to be on a criminal jury, if the case relies on the officer's testimony and there is no camera, I will return a verdict of not guilty under the justification that the state has failed to prove its…

> there needs to be penalties for nonuse.

If they don't exceed the penalty for being caught in a particular instance of wrong doing, then it's not likely to be effective in those cases.. which are likely to be the most important of these cases.

> A couple of hung juries and the powers that be may get the message

DAs are elected. Let them know they shouldn't even bring these cases, or you're going to unseat them for even trying a single one.

We shouldn't rely on the long tail of justice to save us here, we need protections at every level of the system. Peoples lives hang in the balance during a trial, why should we chance it?

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#86

Post by HarryHirsch »

dvtrn wrote: post #73
ridaj wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving it up to local voters makes it sound like it's ok for a police dept to misbehave, eg harass minorities or evade accountability, as long as the majority voters in that city/county are ok with it. I think that's a problem and that going to a couple levels in governance (state or federal) makes total sense given the systematic nature of some of the problems.

Leaving it up to local voters makes it sound like it's ok for a police dept to misbehave, eg harass minorities or evade accountability I apologize, but I don't quite get how you arrived at the conclusion you have, specifically this point. Help me out here?

The sheriff is elected, and there's enough communities in the South where shitting on blacks is a way of life. Do you remember the case of the kid who went to prison because he had birdshit on his hood that the drug quicktest identified as cocaine? Dude only got out quickly because he played football (for I think UGA) and the coach intervened. That stuff, friend, is government-approved reality for many.

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#87

Post by zests »

crispyporkbites wrote: post #7

Is there a way to remove articles about the American police force from HN? Yes we know they’re bad/unethical and a problem for Americans. But is this really something that “gratifies one’s intellectual curiosity”? Isn’t it just flamebait now?

It is mildly disappointing. Not necessarily that this article is here but if an article were posted that is equally interesting yet coming from another political bent, it would be almost immediately marked [flagged] and hidden. Even if the article were interesting.

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#88

Post by jellicle »

pdonis wrote: post #41
pydry wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America desperately needs a national internal affairs department with an entirely separate reporting line whose boss answers directly to the president (or at least state governors). They could purchase, maintain the body cameras, collect and handle the footage and be trusted. If Biden is looking to score some points this would be a good way.

No. This is not a national government problem. This is a local government problem. The solution is for citizens of those cities and counties to hold their local governments accountable and vote them out of office if they don't fix the problem. The last thing we need is more big government, one-size-fits-none policies dictated from above. We need more local people solving their own local problems. It would also help i…

If I drive across the county line, don't I (still) deserve a decent police force?

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#89

Post by edkennedy »

hvdfhbj wrote: post #74
wombatpm wrote: post #5

If we really want body cameras to work, there needs to be penalties for nonuse. For example lack of body camera removes qualified immunity protections for the officer(s) in question. My personal philosophy is that if called to be on a criminal jury, if the case relies on the officer's testimony and there is no camera, I will return a verdict of not guilty under the justification that the state has failed to prove its…

Why is everyone busy inventing complicated penalties? If wearing a body camera is a requirement of the job then the penalty for not doing so should be the same as the penalty for not doing any other aspect of your job, you get fired.

Cops rarely get fired, they get paid vacation.

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#90

Post by xendop »

Even if they turn them on, many body cams in use store the files locally on an SD card with no authentication or verification of chain of custody, just flat video files. It is trivial to wipe evidence from these Axon cameras especially - https://github.com/xraymemory/haxon
Post reply on HN