And there's a possibility that you are a fool. Policy, especially public policy, should not be altered on the possibility that someone did/might do something criminal.
Nice redirect attempt.
We're not talking about merely a
possibility of just
anybody doing something criminal. We're talking a
current state of affairs where the state, or its agents,
can simply murder anybody with no more scrutiny than having to make an
ex post facto allegation of "felonious behavior", which can be trivially applied to just about anybody. And, I have offered a simple way to make that much more difficult.
This speaks for itself. My concerns, and suggestions, are
eminently reasonable. You, obviously, are simply unconcerned. Let's hope the blind faith you place in the state and its agents is not misplaced.
Sure, making cops turn on their dash cameras at the start of shift and keep it on till end of shift might offer additional information which might also be useful as evidence. But what you really seem to want to is videographer who can move about and select the best camera angle as the dynamic situation evolves. How are you going to pay for that? And what if the videographer does not get "the" best angle to show what's taking place?
Nice attempt at a
reductio ad absurdum. Too bad you failed. I never said the video
had to
actually provide usable evidence. I merely observed that, when the police
are equipped with video recording devices, but they are not utilized, it creates doubt in the minds of the citizenry, when instead there is a potential for transparency which we
are entitled to.
As I already pointed out, in this case the officer is either A: guilty, in which case he benefits from the lack of video, or B: innocent, in which case he is harmed by its absence. In neither case does he, or the citizenry, get what is deserved. The most useless video couldn't be as actively bad as this absence.
So, once again, I never suggested anything which would even approach requiring a "videographer who can move about" and pick the best camera angles. That is
your straw man. I merely said that, since we have all these laws creating these oh-so-difficult and sympathy-engendering obligations on the part of officers, we should as well have a law which requires them, so they don't "forget", to turn
on whatever video cameras they
are equipped with. You know, for
their protection. Since, you know, they are always well-intentioned and trustworthy. Who can be opposed to laws designed to
protect police? What, are you exhibiting anti-cop bias or something?
But did you forget that there is a mandatory monetary cap on civil damage awards, and that localities can generally afford paying that amount without batting an eye? Did you forget that if it is shown that the cop was acting outside his assigned and lawful duties his supervisors and the Town are excused from any civil suit? Did you forget that punishing someone to "make a point" is a violation of the 8th Amendment and they can mount an appeal with a more than fair chance of reversal because of that?
When did I say anything about a civil award?