475
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2026
475 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
80724 readers
3592 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I would even go a step further and say that cops' testimony should not even be accepted if they don't have bodycam footage to back it up. When you have a camera that's able to verify anything you need it to, the absence of that verification should be viewed through the lens that you specifically did not want whatever was happening during that time to be recorded.
Can you say: "conflict of interest"? We're at trial, the cop(s) who performed the arrest made a judgement call in the field - of course they're going to double down. What would it do for the career of a cop on the stand to say "you know, I think we made a mistake that day..."? The fact that the case has gone to trial basically makes the cop's testimony redundant, what they're going to say is basically a foregone conclusion, why waste time making them say it again?