Excellent points, I definitely need to read the whole piece. I think readers may be interested in this overview of Andre Gorz's idea of "non-reformist reforms". In which we have to think critically about how power dynamics will change with the reforms we are advocating for and if they are moving us in a system-reducing direction or if they are entrenching the same system we wish to remove. https://jacobin.com/2021/07/andre-gorz-non-reformist-reforms-revolution-political-theory
Just watched your interview with Brianha Joy Gray. I don't like surveillance at all, having grown up in a police state (an American client state). But I do police transcription and have done for quite a while now in a "liberal" city. This city has NEST and cameras all over. The police also are required by their "policies, procedures, bulletins" to wear a body-worn camera whenever they respond to a call that might result in in-person interaction with a member of the public. They have a 30-second buffer during which there is no sound so they are supposed to turn them on as (or before) they leave their vehicle. They rarely do this and in an incident that is moving quickly they often forget to turn them on at all. Also sometimes the cameras malfunction. Although you cannot see what the cop wearing the BWC is doing, you can hear him or her the most clearly and other cops at the incident are also wearing the BWC and those BWCs are filming the original cop. In fact, BWCs are always used in investigations of police-involved-shootings. And those usually involve either a homeless or mentally ill person brandishing a knife--sometimes a small pocket knife--or else carjacking a vehicle so they will have somewhere dry and somewhat private to spend the night. They are useful in investigations of police misbehavior when the citizen is complaining of attitude, and the use of profanity. The transcript itself will not indicate the attitude, often, but films sure do. Whether or not they are disciplined, probably not. If they use profanity, probably. They're not supposed to. Sometimes cops use the Use of Force policy as an excuse to use profanity. They call it verbal emphasis. Which leads me to my second point and that is training. The thing that most contributes to police violence is their TRAINING. For example, they are not trained to shoot at a hand that is holding a weapon. They are trained to shoot at the gut or the heart. The gut--well, you're probably going to bleed out. Same thing with the heart. For something like not dropping a small knife when told to. And also too many cops show up at an incident which should not result in violence of any sort. One case I worked on involved a man hiding in the trunk of a hatchback. He was shot with 97 bullets from a large number of responding units. Of course he did not survive. I don't even remember what the case was about. Maybe low-level theft?
And there's another point which is the fact that the law is written to protect property, not people. That is the core problem. I recently was pulled over by a young cop whose charge was fictitious and I knew it. He had no BWC. His squad car had no camera either. And there was a vehicle between me and him so he could not have seen what he said he witnessed. It was a case of he said/she said with physics on my side. I have worked on cases where the cops said the suspect was resisting and because there were multiple BWCs to check, it was clear he was handcuffed and on the ground and complying. He was making a lot of noise because he was mentally ill and he wanted the bystanders to pressure the cops, which they did. So cameras are not always in the cops' favor. And furthermore a lot of cops resist turning them on. In fact, when citizens complain about a specific cop, they will usually check that first (or their attorney will) and NOT having turned on the BWC is one thing cops are very often disciplined on. BWCs are easily countered with cellphone videos. In fact, the cellphone video has changed things a great deal, down to real time (or close to real time) witnessing of an on-going genocide. That is the only reason I carry a cellphone--to videotape police malfeasance--should I witness it. The police view it as a form of self-defense as well as surveilling the public. But the public is heavily surveilled without BWCs. And furthermore the first thing they take is the perp's cellphone which, if they are dumb enough to carry one, gives ample proof they were present at the scene of the crime. All the adjacent properties' security cams will back that up. As well as cold shows where bystanders identify the perp. I think you should talk to people who actually witness how they are used, including cops who don't like them. Not all cops are assholes, by the way. Some of them are pretty decent people, though most of those usually become detectives because dealing with the public as a patrol officer is really, really stressful. Cops are more scared of the public than the public is of them. FYI, I'm politically left, hate surveillance, don't like authoritarian control mechanisms, and in my youth was one of those people who referred to cops as "pigs". Those were the days! I appreciate what you are doing but BWCs do often help the citizen protect his or her own rights. The rich are most invested in property rights. That's a given. And that's a problem with our legal system. And the core problem there is capitalism. The poor don't care that much about property rights (except their personal items the cops take during the booking process) because their property is negligible.
Thank you so much for educating us, i would not know the details you provided your work is so important to expose this disgusting abuse on the populace
Beautifully argued article, as always. Thank you for what you are doing to educate the readers of your Substack and the public.
Excellent points, I definitely need to read the whole piece. I think readers may be interested in this overview of Andre Gorz's idea of "non-reformist reforms". In which we have to think critically about how power dynamics will change with the reforms we are advocating for and if they are moving us in a system-reducing direction or if they are entrenching the same system we wish to remove. https://jacobin.com/2021/07/andre-gorz-non-reformist-reforms-revolution-political-theory
Just watched your interview with Brianha Joy Gray. I don't like surveillance at all, having grown up in a police state (an American client state). But I do police transcription and have done for quite a while now in a "liberal" city. This city has NEST and cameras all over. The police also are required by their "policies, procedures, bulletins" to wear a body-worn camera whenever they respond to a call that might result in in-person interaction with a member of the public. They have a 30-second buffer during which there is no sound so they are supposed to turn them on as (or before) they leave their vehicle. They rarely do this and in an incident that is moving quickly they often forget to turn them on at all. Also sometimes the cameras malfunction. Although you cannot see what the cop wearing the BWC is doing, you can hear him or her the most clearly and other cops at the incident are also wearing the BWC and those BWCs are filming the original cop. In fact, BWCs are always used in investigations of police-involved-shootings. And those usually involve either a homeless or mentally ill person brandishing a knife--sometimes a small pocket knife--or else carjacking a vehicle so they will have somewhere dry and somewhat private to spend the night. They are useful in investigations of police misbehavior when the citizen is complaining of attitude, and the use of profanity. The transcript itself will not indicate the attitude, often, but films sure do. Whether or not they are disciplined, probably not. If they use profanity, probably. They're not supposed to. Sometimes cops use the Use of Force policy as an excuse to use profanity. They call it verbal emphasis. Which leads me to my second point and that is training. The thing that most contributes to police violence is their TRAINING. For example, they are not trained to shoot at a hand that is holding a weapon. They are trained to shoot at the gut or the heart. The gut--well, you're probably going to bleed out. Same thing with the heart. For something like not dropping a small knife when told to. And also too many cops show up at an incident which should not result in violence of any sort. One case I worked on involved a man hiding in the trunk of a hatchback. He was shot with 97 bullets from a large number of responding units. Of course he did not survive. I don't even remember what the case was about. Maybe low-level theft?
And there's another point which is the fact that the law is written to protect property, not people. That is the core problem. I recently was pulled over by a young cop whose charge was fictitious and I knew it. He had no BWC. His squad car had no camera either. And there was a vehicle between me and him so he could not have seen what he said he witnessed. It was a case of he said/she said with physics on my side. I have worked on cases where the cops said the suspect was resisting and because there were multiple BWCs to check, it was clear he was handcuffed and on the ground and complying. He was making a lot of noise because he was mentally ill and he wanted the bystanders to pressure the cops, which they did. So cameras are not always in the cops' favor. And furthermore a lot of cops resist turning them on. In fact, when citizens complain about a specific cop, they will usually check that first (or their attorney will) and NOT having turned on the BWC is one thing cops are very often disciplined on. BWCs are easily countered with cellphone videos. In fact, the cellphone video has changed things a great deal, down to real time (or close to real time) witnessing of an on-going genocide. That is the only reason I carry a cellphone--to videotape police malfeasance--should I witness it. The police view it as a form of self-defense as well as surveilling the public. But the public is heavily surveilled without BWCs. And furthermore the first thing they take is the perp's cellphone which, if they are dumb enough to carry one, gives ample proof they were present at the scene of the crime. All the adjacent properties' security cams will back that up. As well as cold shows where bystanders identify the perp. I think you should talk to people who actually witness how they are used, including cops who don't like them. Not all cops are assholes, by the way. Some of them are pretty decent people, though most of those usually become detectives because dealing with the public as a patrol officer is really, really stressful. Cops are more scared of the public than the public is of them. FYI, I'm politically left, hate surveillance, don't like authoritarian control mechanisms, and in my youth was one of those people who referred to cops as "pigs". Those were the days! I appreciate what you are doing but BWCs do often help the citizen protect his or her own rights. The rich are most invested in property rights. That's a given. And that's a problem with our legal system. And the core problem there is capitalism. The poor don't care that much about property rights (except their personal items the cops take during the booking process) because their property is negligible.
Thank you so much for educating us, i would not know the details you provided your work is so important to expose this disgusting abuse on the populace