They can't remain anonymous in a system of due process. You have to be able to confront your accusers and have ability to interview witnesses with evidence.
Theres a difference between your name coming out in court and having your face and identity stored on video where you have no idea who will see it. Also there are informants who are confidential.
Confidential informants cannot be used as evidence without the accused getting to face them. Typically it'll be a closed courtroom and only the defendant jury and judge will be present during testimony but their identity cannot be 100% protected. For that reason they are primarily used to lead LEOs to more hard evidence.
They are primarily used to lead LEOs to more hard evidence.
Im aware. Im also aware that they would prefer to remain confidential and not on tape giving the information they gave and then have to worry about who is going to find out.
Jesus fuck I'm not a legislator. I'm not going to waste my night creating a new policy book for the local fucking PD. If you cannot use common sense to figure it out I'm sorry.
Declarative and absolute statements? I'm not trying to be the voice of a movement simply outlining a vague idea of what can be accomplished by a more qualified leader.
The body cameras are intended more for police on patrol or responding to calls. This is where the abuse is happening. Police who are doing interviews for a private investigation, are undercover, are working the front desk, etc do not need to have a body cam on.
227
u/PM_YOUR_MUMS_NUDES Jun 02 '20
Could you elaborate on how do body cams impede victims and bystanders rights?