zlacker

>>itcrow+(OP)
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.

>>coding+n1
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.

>>sschue+B2
holy fuck. do you have a url for me?

>>zrth+86
https://theintercept.com/2020/03/18/nypd-misconduct-body-cam...

>>__alex+B6
Do the cops not comprehend that they were recording themselves while committing crimes against the people they are sworn to protect?

>>blunte+I8
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...