tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post3594821298042064135..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Bodycam rollout must come with transparencyGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-87566658425169321882016-02-17T17:42:23.887-06:002016-02-17T17:42:23.887-06:00Grits, I had the honor of meeting your lovely wife...Grits, I had the honor of meeting your lovely wife, and discussing this very topic. Since she had on an Innocence Project shirt, I asked her if she knew you. Hilarity ensued.ChingaLosPuercoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08822080750585184074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-71942065924916820262016-02-16T14:34:48.728-06:002016-02-16T14:34:48.728-06:00@Anonymous 6:11
The point of an interview is to g...@Anonymous 6:11<br /><br />The point of an interview is to get an account from the person as they perceived the incident. Showing the police officer the video before interviewing him obtains an account from the person as they believe others will perceive it.<br /><br />How do you get to mens rea if the suspect can reshape his story to fit the evidence?Chris Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03837397319040457859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-77631143425030436112016-02-16T06:11:26.433-06:002016-02-16T06:11:26.433-06:00"Under Sec. 1701.655 of the Occupations Code,..."Under Sec. 1701.655 of the Occupations Code, Austin must include in its policy a provision "entitling an officer to access any recording of an incident involving the officer before the officer is required to make a statement about the incident." That clause alone serves to undermine the entire endeavor. Citizens who are part of an "incident" involving police won't get to see video before making a statement because they might fabricate a story to fit the video. But isn't the same true for officers?"<br /><br />I favor all parties with standing having access rather than remove officers from having access to seeing the footage before a statement is given. Presumably, someone complaining about misconduct has a very clear idea of what they felt was wrong with the interaction and is likely one of their very few such interactions with the law while the cop might have hundreds of interactions with people in a given time frame so the video is more important to review. As the policing department would have full access to any such footage to review it before deciding how to treat the matter, from something simple such as did an event occur, was it a particular cop, or was the version told by the complaining party reasonably accurate to something harder to address like an emotional belief involving tone of voice or show subtle hints of potential misconduct but nothing obvious.<br /><br />So while I am of the more of mind that you give up most privacy rights when you enter the public realm, as it relates to a traffic enforcement encounter for example, than if the cops break down your door based on a neighbor calling them because they heard screams and cries for help, many of these issues should have been addressed in public forums beforehand, not tacked on or rubber stamped by some carefully selected group of residents or self proclaimed experts. Removing access to the cop being investigated is merely playing a game of gotcha with limited resources while limiting access to directly impacted parties could help provide a fuller version of what really took place in an encounter. Local media in Houston shows the main newspaper posting front page pictures of those accused of crimes with no retractions when many are found not guilty or charges are dismissed so offering them yet another means to publicly shame citizens for headlines is not something most people seem to want.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com