theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Over the past few years, I've been watching a lot of police bodycam footage. There's tons of channels on YouTube that curate this kind of content. Some better than others. I'll share some of my favorites, if anyone is interested.
Here's some of the thoughts I've had, based on what I've seen so far. Feel free to engage with any that strike your fancy.
Police bodycams are a wonderful improvement to society. They keep cops more honest and professional. They give citizens great insight into how common police-citizen interactions tend to play out. They give both prosecutors and defendants much better chances of making their case - if they have a case to be made.
If your jurisdiction doesn't have them, lobby hard to get them. If your jurisdiction doesn't release the footage to the public on request (suitably redacted for PII, of course), lobby hard to get the footage released.
There is no epidemic of police shooting black people out of racial animus. I infer this entirely from the number of black people I've seen, who clearly don't believe any such epidemic exists. I'm sure there are jurisdictions where it happens. I'm sure there are departments that find ways to lose the footage. But a widespread practice? Even black people don't believe that.
Every drunk driver lives "literally right over there".
Far too many people think a detention or arrest is something you can debate your way out of on the spot. Almost all cops have zero interest in getting into such a dead-end conversation with such an uncooperative nincompoop. This leads to a lot of footage with dialog like:
A lot of states have what are called "implied consent" laws about driver's licenses. Basically, part of the paperwork you sign when you get your license states that getting a license implies your consent to submit to an evidentiary blood alcohol test (usually a breath or blood sample) when asked during a DUI investigation. Further, a lot of states have rules mandating that a cop must read you, verbatim, an implied consent law advisory document, before they can actually test your blood alcohol level. This is like the reading of the Miranda warning, only much denser legalese, which nobody is familiar with.
The reading concludes with giving the citizen a choice: Refuse the test, and automatically lose their license for a year; or take the test, and either lose your license for 90 days if you're over the limit, or don't lose your license if you're under the limit.
So imagine it's one in the morning. You're drunk off your ass in a police station. Some cop with poor diction is rattling off a page of legalese you're in no condition to follow. And at the end of it, you have to make a fairly serious life choice. If you're too impaired to figure it out, that counts as a refusal, and you can kiss your license goodbye for a year.
Non-escalation is clearly a large part of police training, in a lot of jurisdictions, but not every cop is good at it.
A lot of cops are very comfortable letting a perp drag things out with obstructively circular behavior, declining to cut the clown show short, put hands on, and get things on track. Sometimes they're waiting for backup. Sometimes they just don't want to get physical if they don't have to. Sometimes they're sympathetic to the perp and hope there's a way to a peaceful resolution.
The number of people who think that resisting arrest or fleeing the scene is the right play is mind-boggling.
The number of people who seem functional but are one brain cramp away from a mental break is depressing.
The number of people who have dedicated their lives to turning their misdemeanors into felonies is hilarious. So is the number of people who insist on committing more than one crime at a time. Protip: If you have felony amounts of drugs in your car, obey all traffic laws and make sure your tags are valid.
I'm convinced drug-sniffing police dogs are a scam. If they bring the dog up to your car during a traffic stop, the dog is going to "alert" on something. Guaranteed. I think this drug-sniffing procedure is just a fig leaf, to give cops probable cause to search for stuff they already know they're going to find.
Cops arresting cops makes for some of the most satisfying footage. Because it's all on camera, the arresting officer stays professional and incorruptible. The best part is when the arrestee cop is too impaired to keep his mouth shut, and tries to talk the arresting officer into showing "professional courtesy".
Wal-Mart and Target loss prevention staff Do. Not. Play. They will detain you, turn you over to the police, and trespass you from all stores everywhere for life.
Nobody in the comments likes it when a perp survives a justified shooting.
Anyway, that's all I've got for now. Let me know if you have any questions. I'll try to answer them as best I can.
Here's some of the thoughts I've had, based on what I've seen so far. Feel free to engage with any that strike your fancy.
Police bodycams are a wonderful improvement to society. They keep cops more honest and professional. They give citizens great insight into how common police-citizen interactions tend to play out. They give both prosecutors and defendants much better chances of making their case - if they have a case to be made.
If your jurisdiction doesn't have them, lobby hard to get them. If your jurisdiction doesn't release the footage to the public on request (suitably redacted for PII, of course), lobby hard to get the footage released.
There is no epidemic of police shooting black people out of racial animus. I infer this entirely from the number of black people I've seen, who clearly don't believe any such epidemic exists. I'm sure there are jurisdictions where it happens. I'm sure there are departments that find ways to lose the footage. But a widespread practice? Even black people don't believe that.
Every drunk driver lives "literally right over there".
Far too many people think a detention or arrest is something you can debate your way out of on the spot. Almost all cops have zero interest in getting into such a dead-end conversation with such an uncooperative nincompoop. This leads to a lot of footage with dialog like:
"Get out of the car."
"But why?"
"Get out of the car."
"But why?"
"Get out of the car."
"But why?"
"If you don't get out of the car, I'm going to take you out of the car."
"But why?"
And: "Why am I under arrest?"
"DUI."
"But why though?"
". . . "
"But why am I under arrest?"
"I already told you."
"But why though?"
These kinds of conversations correlate with weird ideas about being able to call a lawyer at the side of the road, so they can talk you out of your ticket or arrest or whatever. And weird ideas about the cops not being able to arrest you for DUI if you refuse to give them a breath sample as evidence.A lot of states have what are called "implied consent" laws about driver's licenses. Basically, part of the paperwork you sign when you get your license states that getting a license implies your consent to submit to an evidentiary blood alcohol test (usually a breath or blood sample) when asked during a DUI investigation. Further, a lot of states have rules mandating that a cop must read you, verbatim, an implied consent law advisory document, before they can actually test your blood alcohol level. This is like the reading of the Miranda warning, only much denser legalese, which nobody is familiar with.
The reading concludes with giving the citizen a choice: Refuse the test, and automatically lose their license for a year; or take the test, and either lose your license for 90 days if you're over the limit, or don't lose your license if you're under the limit.
So imagine it's one in the morning. You're drunk off your ass in a police station. Some cop with poor diction is rattling off a page of legalese you're in no condition to follow. And at the end of it, you have to make a fairly serious life choice. If you're too impaired to figure it out, that counts as a refusal, and you can kiss your license goodbye for a year.
Non-escalation is clearly a large part of police training, in a lot of jurisdictions, but not every cop is good at it.
A lot of cops are very comfortable letting a perp drag things out with obstructively circular behavior, declining to cut the clown show short, put hands on, and get things on track. Sometimes they're waiting for backup. Sometimes they just don't want to get physical if they don't have to. Sometimes they're sympathetic to the perp and hope there's a way to a peaceful resolution.
The number of people who think that resisting arrest or fleeing the scene is the right play is mind-boggling.
The number of people who seem functional but are one brain cramp away from a mental break is depressing.
The number of people who have dedicated their lives to turning their misdemeanors into felonies is hilarious. So is the number of people who insist on committing more than one crime at a time. Protip: If you have felony amounts of drugs in your car, obey all traffic laws and make sure your tags are valid.
I'm convinced drug-sniffing police dogs are a scam. If they bring the dog up to your car during a traffic stop, the dog is going to "alert" on something. Guaranteed. I think this drug-sniffing procedure is just a fig leaf, to give cops probable cause to search for stuff they already know they're going to find.
Cops arresting cops makes for some of the most satisfying footage. Because it's all on camera, the arresting officer stays professional and incorruptible. The best part is when the arrestee cop is too impaired to keep his mouth shut, and tries to talk the arresting officer into showing "professional courtesy".
Wal-Mart and Target loss prevention staff Do. Not. Play. They will detain you, turn you over to the police, and trespass you from all stores everywhere for life.
Nobody in the comments likes it when a perp survives a justified shooting.
Anyway, that's all I've got for now. Let me know if you have any questions. I'll try to answer them as best I can.
