Hacker News Reader

Comment by nomel | Hacker News Reader

Laws that rely on an officers/departments personal reading of a situation/interpretation are easily confused and abused, especially when it's something as fuzzy as "interference". Having clarity is nice. I personally think it's fine to give an officer some sort of personal space. If I were an officer arresting someone, I wouldn't want someone affiliated with them standing 5 feet behind me, where I would have to worry about being attacked. Not sure how this works indoors though, where 25 feet would make observation impossible.

This assumes sane body camera policies are in place, like immediate dismissal if the camera/mic is turned off/covered, during any part up to or during an arrest.

View on HN

> This assumes sane body camera policies are in place, like immediate dismissal if the camera/mic is turned off/covered, during any part up to or during an arrest.

Assuming fantasies is rarely helpful when judging the effects of legislation.

Without sane body camera policy, deterministic accountability is fantasy. I was speaking from that goal.

> This assumes sane body camera policies are in place, like immediate dismissal if the camera/mic is turned off/covered, during any part up to or during an arrest.

I think every single copy would be fired because of this. I've yet to see any body cam footage during an arrest where the camera wasn't covered up at some point. And since you are the one proposing clarity and specifics here, you've just demonstrated by having these specifics in place don't always help.

After all, can you, with 100% accuracy, measure with just your eyes 25.1 feet? What's the cop going to do? Break out the measuring tape? Where do they measure from? Also, how do they prove the intent part. After all, that's subjective. If I'm recording but my intent is not to do anything that is listed in the law, it doesn't apply to me.

So, lots of lack of clarity in between lots of bad specifics.

> And since you are the one proposing clarity and specifics here, you've just demonstrated by having these specifics in place don't always help.

What I said is not the policy of most stations. I never claimed it was. But, it is a logical implementation that would protect against bad officers. For those places where it is policy, a failure of enforcement doesn't mean we throw out the concept of law, ffs.

> So, lots of lack of clarity in between lots of bad specifics.

You know what's harder to judge than, say, 25.0 feet? Having to completely guess, leaving it up to how grumpy the officer is.

That seems about as realistic as immediate dismissal from your job if you forget to unmute yourself on zoom.

It's OK to expect higher standards from police officers. Cameras should record all day and officers should only be allowed to mark timestamps they wish to be deleted later. The footage should still be logged in a black box, encrypted with something to make it not easily accessible. That way a cop could "whoopsie" their camera before beating someone, but it would still ultimately be possible to get that recording.

Bingo. Body cameras are a technically-solveable problem.

Zero tolerance and enforcement should be the starting place.

(Coupled with adjusting policies and procedures to be more in line with actual experience, if we're going fully transparent)

Bingo, you have the answer. Now do the same suggestion for security cameras in homes for domestic violence, bathrooms for rape, politician's and judges offices for bribery, offices of government clerks, etc.

You'll realize people get very uncomfortable very quickly when you start heading down a near bulletproof solution. They want the chaos, the charade and they definitely want the "vagueness" of laws because they can't handle the black and white nature of a lot of laws that were drawn up lazily.

Laws and enforceability are intrinsically linked.

If you have non-omniscient enforcement, there's a certain amount of lubrication between the law and reality.

If you have omniscient enforcement, the onus is on the law to account for reality.

My proposal is simple: a cop is someone deputized by the State to be a cop who is operating a body cam.

Body cam is off? He's just a citizen with a nightstick. When he's tried, prosecution is held in contempt of court if they allow the jury in any way to know that, were his camera on, he would have been a police officer. Same with the defendant: if he mouths off about what was otherwise his job, he's going to jail for as long as it takes to convene a fresh jury, no bail, contempt.

Sure it’s simple. You can get even simpler without changing the realistic probability of it happening: just don’t hire bad cops.

One of these is actionable, one of them isn't.

Mandatory body cams were also dismissed by the cynical, and it's the rule in many forces now, perhaps even most. This is just an extension of that policy.

No, it isn't actionable. It would require constitutional amendments in multiple states, changes to state law, changes to multiple federal laws, and I wouldn't be surprised if it all got thrown out at multiple levels. That is no more an action than "thoughts and prayers".

That requires a reliable test that can filter them, including new officers. If you think you can easily filter "good" and "bad" people, acting in extreme circumstances, you're delusional.

I don't think it's possible at all, let alone easy.

If the mute button is right next to the “execute participant” button, more caution with the buttons is warranted.

ALL enforcement of laws in normal situations rely on officers/departments personal reading of a situation.

The exceptions are Grand Juries and indictments.

Sure, but less personal reading is a good thing for the public. For example, speed limits make it clear how fast you can go, requiring something exceptional for an officer to stop you, and acting as protection if they do [1]. Similarly, this makes it clear that they can't threaten you with claims of interference, beyond this distance, unless you're doing something exceptional.

[1] https://www.heddinglawfirm.com/unlawful-police-stop#:~:text=....

Yup, though as a counter, police academies really focus on the ability to generate PC (probable cause). It’s a highly prized skill.

Something hanging from a mirror, a broken tail light, out of spec window tint, child seat improperly secured, load improperly secured, weaving in the lane, driving too slow for conditions, too fast for conditions, driving inconsistent speeds, not properly signaling, failure to maintain your vehicle in a safe condition (bald tires), illegally modified emissions controls (exhausts), using a cell phone while driving, etc.

Also, speedometers are notoriously out of calibration, and no one is going to believe the driver when they say they were going x speed without some evidence.

The vehicle code is huge, and it’s a rare driver that can’t be pulled over for something. ‘Fishing’ is a common activity that catches a lot of drug smuggling, people on warrants, DUI, etc.

Speed traps also generate a lot of revenue for many departments, depending on state laws.

If you look like you keep your nose clean, you’ll usually get left alone though, unless they’re bored.

I’ve personally had at least 2 instances where I was driving on rural highways at night, and was followed for 15+ minutes by police trying to find a reason to pull me over so they could search me though. They both let me go after it was obvious I wasn’t a drug smuggler or DUI.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com