463
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 48 points 9 months ago

I don't see how this is transparency. Either way, the cop can just lie.

I mean this is nonsense:

California’s new law promotes these elements of procedural justice. During a traffic stop, for example, an officer who immediately shares the reason for the stop is being transparent. This allows the motorist to directly engage with the legitimate, legal reason for the stop rather than feel as if they are being interrogated for no reason or an ulterior motive. This more respectful form of communication makes police officers more accountable to those they wield power over.

If a cop pulls a black guy over for 'speeding,' it's still the cop's word against theirs. The only difference now is that the cop doesn't have to make the black guy guess which lie the cop is going to use.

[-] xantoxis@lemmy.world 37 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

If a cop pulls a car over for speeding, and the motorist says "because I ran a stop sign", the cop can now give two tickets. Removing the fishing question still makes the driver's situation better.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

But how does the cop know if I'm lying or not

I just wanted to distract him from the body in the trunk

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago

That and the dash cam.

If you're worried enough about police integrity, have a dash cam and have it on. I've seen videos (rare) where the cop lied about speed and the dash cam was used to knock it down.

Even cheap ones could be used to figure out speed based on landmarks and time stamps. GPS speed would be more conclusive, though.

For that scenario all you'd have to do is pay a lawyer to file a motion of discovery, and the charges will almost certainly be dropped. You could probably talk a paralegal to do it for cheap, or your jurisdiction might allow you to file it yourself.

It costs more to gather the evidence than they'll get from the fine.

[-] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I got a dashcam a few months ago and it's already paid for itself several times over. I've been hit twice and it's pretty easy for insurance to get the other party to pay when you've got video evidence that they're in the wrong.

[-] Zoot@reddthat.com 4 points 9 months ago

How have you been bit twice in a few months? That sounds insane to me. 12 years since my last even bumper scuff.

[-] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

I'm convinced it's some cosmic irony caused by me buying a dashcam. Hadn't had anything happen for about 10 years before that.

[-] Che_Donkey@lemmy.ml 15 points 9 months ago

LAPD & Sherrif deputies being held accountable...

I have a small doubt

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

The Texas state troopers (who investigate police misconduct) are actually pretty hard ass about it. They see regular cops as inferior, so there's no 'thin blue line' going on.

It's probably because their training is like 9 months versus 6 weeks.

[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

So...did they investigate uvalde yet or no?

They're likely part of the reason there might be criminal charges pressed for it.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Texas Rangers are more likely to investigate.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 4 points 9 months ago

This seems like a clear upgrade.

Cop pulls you over, and immediately states the reason. They lied about you speeding? That's ammunition for a defense. They said you were swerving? Dash cam footage might tell a different story.

The effect on cops will be the biggest piece. They'll stretch the truth or lie in court, because they have a script. They might not even remember the event.

But suddenly, they have to choose to lie in the moment, they might even be caught in the lie before a judge

It's not everything, but it's certainly something

this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
463 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19143 readers
2315 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS