Hacker News Reader

Comment by milkytron | Hacker News Reader

Interesting to hear someone from the police respond to the actions of those officers.

And regarding this quote:

> Law enforcement experts stressed that viral protest videos, while visceral, only show a moment in time and may miss what officers were facing outside of the frame.

Isn't that what body cameras are for? If we only have one source of video, then it's hard for police to justify saying, "That wasn't the whole story."

View on HN

Body cams aren't the end all of "what the police saw" either. And even when you have bystanders and body cam footage side-by-side, it's hard to see what really happened. This was covered well here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/01/us/police-bod...

Right, viral videos are in fact the only story that the public gets to see (unless the police find it to be in their interest to release it)

I believe that policies regarding camera use during protests in many cities were changed as a direct response of civil liberties complaints from organizations like the ACLU. People said they didn’t want police to use them for surveillance.

> People said they didn’t want police to use them for surveillance.

Source?

"The Seattle Police Department said Wednesday that officers will be ordered to turn on their body-worn cameras during protests in a departure from longstanding policy.

The new policy comes after Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan issued an executive order requiring the cameras to be used during demonstrations.

The Seattle Police Department has been outfitted with body-worn cameras since 2017 but a longstanding policy designed to protect the privacy of peaceful protestors prevented officers from using cameras during the demonstrations of the past two weeks.

That policy was written in consultation with civil rights groups, like the ACLU, that worry body cameras could make it easier for police to track and target protesters, particularly in communities of color that have a history of over-surveillance."

https://www.geekwire.com/2020/seattle-police-will-use-body-c...

https://www.cnet.com/news/police-body-cameras-at-protests-ra...

Right. Since the video is private and disappears any time an officer might be implicated, the only remaining effects are harmful ones.

This is the ACLU position https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-... It doesn't sound like they are against them at all.

You're correct.

"Several major cities, including Seattle, Boston, New York and Minneapolis, have specific policies against police recording with body cameras at protests.

Protesters have long been worried about surveillance at demonstrations, the latest twist being police use of technology like facial recognition and social media monitoring to identify people in crowds. Using body cameras as surveillance tools at protests threaten people's privacy and could have a chilling effect on free speech."

https://www.cnet.com/news/police-body-cameras-at-protests-ra...

I am no fan of the police, but the problem is not a lack of footage, the problem is the lack of attention span on the part of the viewers. Videos usually get edited for brevity, and the shorter you make the video, the more likely that you get a misleading edit.

I have read that this was the case for the Rodney King incident, where the public watched a short clip on the news and got one impression, and the jury watched a longer video, which gave them a different view. The longer video was available, but not aired on TV.

OP's point is that you can't make those kind of claims without evidence. If you're saying a video only looks bad because it's misleadingly edited, you need to provide proof of your claim. Unfortunately, the police also routinely fight tooth and nail to prevent access to their own video footage.

I don't care what the context is; there is absolutely zero justification for the police to be kneeling on someone's neck until they die. Or pushing over a 75-year-old man and then leaving him there to bleed from the ears. Or shooting a fleeing suspect in the back.

There are dozens of similar incidents from the period since the protests started that don't matter if they were "taken out of context"—the actions themselves, no matter their context, are reprehensible from any institution that is supposed to be "serving and protecting" the people.

Your outrage is against points I didn't make. I never said the police acted properly in this, or any other example. In fact, I think the police 'serve and protect' only the state and themselves.

My points were about our current social-media situation, where we have vast amounts of information, and people are able to filter it through their lens of choice.

I’ve seen plenty of videos of the police walking up to peaceful protesters and suddenly beating them with clubs, or video of boring traffic stops where the police decide to shoot the person. What fuller context could be provided that would change the meaning of these acts?

Right. The talk of filter lenses forgets that some are a bit closer to reality then others.

Anyways, I just assume by full context they mean something like "you gotta show those n______ and bums who is boss or they might get uppity".

> I’ve seen plenty of videos of the police walking up to peaceful protesters and suddenly beating them with clubs, or video of boring traffic stops where the police decide to shoot the person.

Examples, please

Greg Doucette on Twitter is a good place to start.

The bodybuilder? Because that what shows up in the search results.

The lawyer

Youth protection services did a lot worse to a kid with mild autism quite recently (who had done nothing except "kicking a wall"). Kept him in a face down restraint on the ground until about 30 minutes after he died. Yes, really.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/max-benson-el-dorado-california...

There's another difference as well. Help was called for George Floyd before he died. It was established that the California Youth Protection Service did not call any help whatsoever for this child until 30 minutes after he died.

Note that this kid was not even suspected of committing a crime. Not then, not ever. To me, that this happens calls into question why institutions like this are allowed to exist at all.

It's certainly true that some of the institutions that are being talked about for being pushed to take up some of the slack when we defund the police do not have the best records, either. My family has had harrowing experiences with the mental health system, so I am absolutely cognizant of the genuine concerns with trying to increase their role.

But that means that we should also fix the problems with those institutions, not that we should just allow the police to continue to operate with impunity, no matter their abuses.

It may be a long, hard road, but ultimately I believe we can have a safer, kinder, more just society as a result.

What? While it's true that there is a small minority of kids in youth protection because of involvement with the police, at least 90% of them are there because social workers decided, mostly against their and their parent's wishes, that they needed help and couldn't be allowed to be free to refuse that help.

And of course 0% of kids in youth protection facilities are convicted of a crime (they would be somewhere else if that were the case). Youth protection services don't "take up slack for the police" at all ...

>but the problem is not a lack of footage

Actually from what I've gathered right here on HN over the years, lack of footage is actually the problem.

Police simply refuse to release footage. Excuses typically used include:

* It's evidence

* Releasing the video could danger the lives of officers

* We're reviewing it as part of an internal investigation (which would take months)

Also read of an instance where a civilian was allowed to watch footage from police cam but was barred from recording or taking notes from the video.

I personally think that body cams are great, and that more video is good, but it won't solve the problem of people viewing vast amounts of information through biased filters.

On a side note, police officers are civilians; pretending they are military or paramilitary officers is dangerous.

Your point about "biased filters" is a red herring as people have been complaining about police WELL before the popularity of body cams.

It's not a red herring, but yes they have, and that's one reason my grandparent comment mentions Rodney King.

The police shouldn't have the right to view their own footage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com