you should make it a rule that unless a PD can provide full video evidence of shootings/assaults on

[srican69]

civilians, its officers should be indicted by default.

If they can wear a holster - they can wear body cameras.

If you give a person power to shoot to kill - then that person needs to be held to a higher standard not a lower standard as we are witnessing..

[Travis_0004]

1. So guilty until proven innocent?

A first year law student could convince the supreme court that that is unconstitutional.

[srican69]

2. an Indictment is not the same as conviction. Indictment is simply saying probable cause exists.

[ManiacJoe]

8. Well, sure, when the probable cause actually exists.

[Thinkingabout]

3. Would you want to be under the same rules, if ever suspect of a crime and there wasn't a

Video then you would be so indicted? This would have to be the rule for everyone, law enforcement has the same protections as any other citizen.

[srican69]

7. but they are not ... they seem to be shooting/tasering with impunity

They can shoot target black and mentally ill people for target practice for all they care and still get away with it.

[Thinkingabout]

13. That was not the question, would you like to have an indictment against you whether there was proof

or not and because there was not a video tape of the incident? Pretty strong to indict when there is not a video, if you get those rules for law enforcement then the same laws will apply for others, is this something you would want to happen?

[srican69]

14. I should be given the choice ..if I have the ability to shoot at will at anyone whom I

Think poses a danger to me or others ..then I expect to be held to the same standard I am prescribing for LEO.

So maybe that standard should be adopted to gun toting vigilantes as well.

If this had been case, then Darren Wilson and G.Zimmerman would have thought twice before pulling the trigger or would have been able to present a very compelling defense argument.

[Thinkingabout]

15. This is not something in which we want to do as Americans, it is innocent until proven guilty.

I also think LEO having cameras I'd going to exonerate LEO and convict more of the ones they stop when they get out of hand but then we would have had actions of both. Having to prove ones innocence via video is not where we want to go, I don't think it has a chance in hell to get past the Supreme Court who make these determinations nor would a lower court let this happen, we are all entitled to the same treatment under the law, a right we hold dear.

[rock]

4. I believe you're right

To protect the DA from an ethical problem. The LEOs work for him; for him to make that decision is biased and simply unethical. Incidentally, notice that the LEO does not lose any of his rights by this process.

On edit: Notice that without your proposed automatic indictment, you deprive the suspect of a fair process (as the DA is biased on the side of the cops).

[LostInAnomie]

5. Horrible idea.

People are entitled to equal protection under the law. Automatically indicting someone because of their job would be institutionalizing discrimination.

[noiretextatique]

6. i am not sure this is a good idea

but given the posters who are against it, you might be on to something

[NaturalHigh]

9. If the camera doesn't work?

If it's too dark? If it gets broken in a scuffle?

Your suggestion would rightfully be laughed out of any court that heard it.

[srican69]

10. If soldiers can carry cameras into the battlefield that seem to work in

Dark ( IR) and have sufficient robustness for the military - then I am sure such cameras are good enough for the cops.

Additional cameras mounted on the vehicle can provide added redundancy and evidence if so needed.

No solution is perfect .. But that is not the reason why this idea will face push back. The reason is that cops don't want to be held accountable for their own actions. They want the power to discharge their weapons at will without any fear of recrimination.

[NaturalHigh]

11. Those last two sentences might be true...

but I still wouldn't want my life, livelihood, or freedom to depend on a piece of equipment forced on me by politicians and manufactured by the lowest bidder.

As you said, no solution is perfect, but yours isn't even legal in my opinion - constitutional presumption of innocence and all that.

[Lurks Often]

12. How about coming up with something that has a realistic chance of happening

because your idea will never hold up to judicial scrutiny, much less ever pass a vote in any state legislature or in Congress.

[sir pball]

16. An independent prosecutor who only investigates police-involved shootings

It is a legitimate concern/conflict for a DA who has to work with the PD, who needs their cooperation to make cases - so have one person who isn't beholden to the cops automatically and fairly investigating any incident involving them.

[Lurks Often]

17. The OP's proposals had no basis in reality

As for the independent prosecutor, in theory it's a good idea, but being cynical, I expect he'd be co-opted or pressured by the other prosecutors.

[sir pball]

18. Probably, but it's all I can realistically think of that's better than nothing nt