Defective police equipment

[Hawkmoon]

You have to love body cams. They're supposed to keep the cops honest, and reportedly officers like them because they often contradict claims of brutality, etc. Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing trend for body cam footage to be "lost" if/when it isn't favorable to the police. Case in point:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/family-man-died-after-officer-signs-form-refusing-treatment

[RoadKingLarry]

Sounds like murder to me.

[Firethorn]

I doubt that it is a "growing trend" any more than that bodycams themselves are a growing trend.  A certain "loss rate" is seen even with vehicle cameras when it is to the officer's favor.

Personally, I'd make a simple change.  The footage has been "lost"?  No footage available?

Then either the police are charged with destruction of evidence OR the case goes to court assuming that the lost footage contained the worst possible case. 

This case isn't actually ideal, I think, given that the officers apparently signed as themselves.  As such, it wasn't the victim who refused medical treatment, it was the officers.  Ergo, they're responsible for him.  No matter what else happened.  They signed the refusal of treatment, they're responsible for his death.  Easy.

If there were allegations of forgery, then we might have something more.

[MechAg94]

Deliberate action that allowed the man to die.  He didn't cause the injury, but he took steps to insure he got no help.  I am not certain where that falls in criminal charges, but they should get the book thrown at them.  The lawsuit writes itself. 

As far as cameras, I might start with a financial penalties for the officers if their cameras don't work.  Verifying that equipment is working should be the same as making sure their gun is loaded.  I am not sure if judges are allowed to throw out cases when camera footage disappears.  I think that should become standard.  IMO, we have seen far too many reasons to say that police officers are no more trustworthy than the average person.  They don't get he benefit of the doubt any more.  That bridge was burned a long time ago. 

[MechAg94]

I doubt that it is a "growing trend" any more than that bodycams themselves are a growing trend.  A certain "loss rate" is seen even with vehicle cameras when it is to the officer's favor.

Personally, I'd make a simple change.  The footage has been "lost"?  No footage available?

Then either the police are charged with destruction of evidence OR the case goes to court assuming that the lost footage contained the worst possible case.  

This case isn't actually ideal, I think, given that the officers apparently signed as themselves.  As such, it wasn't the victim who refused medical treatment, it was the officers.  Ergo, they're responsible for him.  No matter what else happened.  They signed the refusal of treatment, they're responsible for his death.  Easy.

If there were allegations of forgery, then we might have something more.

I don't know if I would say it was a growing trend.  I have heard of it happening in one case or another for as long as I have been paying attention to such things.  Not a growing trend, but an old trend that hasn't stopped with body cams.  I am surprised more judges don't get more pissed off about it.  Certainly, the security and access to the video footage should be tracked and made public.