[coding_lobster]

I kind of share the sentiment expressed in the final quote of the article. From the way the dataset is described this could be really helpful to criminals and really harmful and dangerous for other folks - police and civilian alike.

[sschueller]

I would rather have an extra criminal on the streets than risk ruining someones live that is innocent because some cop planted evidence.

Just this week a bodycam from NYC officer shows him planting drugs over 2 years ago. The person who's involved took a plea deal because they didn't want to risk going to jail for many years. The cop still has his job and this wasn't the first time.

Try getting a job in the US with a criminal record.

[raxxorrax]

Not if you are in a witness protection program against a drug mafia. They will take their opportunity to send a message.

Overall I agree though. This is the same baseless defense used against leaking of info on war crimes.

I doubt planting evidence is common, but it will nevertheless be interesting to dig through that. If it is true the cop is still serving, it should be a huge scandal. These practices need to be stomped out immediately.

[lotsofpulp]

> If it is true the cop is still serving, it should be a huge scandal.

Who cares if it’s a huge scandal? I remember reading about the “scandal” years ago. The cop is still has his job and was never charged with a crime.

The cop broke the law multiple times on video, an innocent person suffered physical and mental harm. The cop caused harm to all of society by reducing the trust between members of society. Yet he has a job, one with power over others where his word matters more than others.

Hence the protests.

[shadowgovt]

> If it is true the cop is still serving, it should be a huge scandal

One of the reasons that the protests in the US are so widespread right now is that, fundamentally, this is the issue: that cop still serving isn't a scandal at all. The police look out for their own, and internal accountability for violating procedure is an absolute farce.

[readarticle]

I don’t think that’s the bargain here.

Fusion centers seem to be shared databases of threats that federal, state, and local agencies all contribute to.

Given the scale, it’s likely more of the focus is on organizations, not individuals.

Given the nature of internal misconduct, I think it’s safe to assume that wouldn’t be shared period, let alone in venues such as these.

In cases where it does need to be shared, e.g. covered up NYPD misconduct affects FBI case, I’d assume they have alternative means to this sort of spreadsheet-broadcast impression I’m getting of the centers.

Could be totally off, either way I suppose we’ll find out now.

[zrth]

holy fuck. do you have a url for me?

[__alexs]

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/18/nypd-misconduct-body-cam...

[blunte]

Do the cops not comprehend that they were recording themselves while committing crimes against the people they are sworn to protect?

[wonderwonder]

Based on history, why would they care? Cameras or no, it appears that there are almost no consequences for their breaking of the law. Generally worst case scenario is that the residents of the city they work in pay a large fine to the victims. QI means the cops suffer no harm. Most of the time the department and prosecution conspires to ensure the video and crime never sees the light of day.

And if they do end up going to court: " the court held that California police who stand accused of stealing $225,000 cannot be sued because they never were told specifically that stealing money from people’s homes violates the Constitution"

https://www.ocregister.com/2020/05/14/high-court-to-decide-i...

[freeone3000]

He's still on the job, and the person he wanted in prison is still in prison, so it's more that it doesn't matter he was on video, because not even video evidence is enough to get him fired, let alone arrested.

[dragonwriter]

Cops are sworn to the law, not the people, but, in any case oaths, absent effective accountability to them, only matter to the people that didn't need to take them in the first place.

[ta17711771]

> against the people they are sworn to protect?

This is a misnomer.

Cops are not actually "to protect and serve", and this has been proven in court.

Their function is to uphold the law. That's it.

[peterwwillis]

This won't expose cops planting evidence, it's more like 10,000 criminals going free, and your direct example isn't related to this story.

[tom_]

The police are civilians.

[SigmundA]

The common definition of civilian is "a person who is not a member of the police, the armed forces, or a fire department".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian

So sworn police officers are not normally considered civilians, while non-sworn personel are:

https://www.discoverpolicing.org/explore-the-field/types-of-...

https://www.discoverpolicing.org/explore-the-field/civilian-...

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

True. But when you hear cops talk about non cops, they will call non cops civilians.

[MrZongle2]

As a veteran, my blood boils when I hear that.

As I am no longer a member of the military, I am a civilian. My neighbors are civilians. And regardless of a badge or uniform or firearm or SWAT teams or Pentagon-surplus armored vehicles, cops are civilians.

Feeling otherwise merely reinforces the "us-versus-them" mentality that leads to the current crisis.

[goliatone]

This [1] gave me an idea of how some police might see their role.

[1] http://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

That is definitely an interesting perspective. It seems somewhat idealized, but if we accept the premise of the author, then sheepdogs that hurt lambs are not removed in US making sheep go 'Baa'.

Still, a worthwhile read.