[yareal]

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.

[samatman]

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.

[lazyasciiart]

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

[samatman]

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.

[lazyasciiart]

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".

[nomel]

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.

[lazyasciiart]

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

[ethbr1]

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)

[zo1]

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.

[ethbr1]

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.