DEA Ends Body Camera Program (propublica.org) 55
The Drug Enforcement Administration has quietly ended its body camera program barely four years after it began, ProPublica reports, citing an internal email. From the report: On April 2, DEA headquarters emailed employees announcing that the program had been terminated effective the day before. The DEA has not publicly announced the policy change, but by early April, links to pages about body camera policies on the DEA's website were broken.
The email said the agency made the change to be "consistent" with a Trump executive order rescinding the 2022 requirement that all federal law enforcement agents use body cameras. But at least two other federal law enforcement agencies within the Justice Department -- the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -- are still requiring body cameras, according to their spokespeople.
The email said the agency made the change to be "consistent" with a Trump executive order rescinding the 2022 requirement that all federal law enforcement agents use body cameras. But at least two other federal law enforcement agencies within the Justice Department -- the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -- are still requiring body cameras, according to their spokespeople.
Re:So cameras no longer have bodies? (Score:5, Insightful)
I appreciate that maybe there's a bigger cultural component to this than I'd like to admit, but you have to be in a very special type of information bubble to not know what a body camera is, or at least infer it from context.
It's a camera you wear on your body. Specifically, they are cameras that law enforcement officers wear to record their interactions with the public to be used as evidence - usually against the officer - if or when shit goes bad.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The fuck are you on about? There's a link to more information, if you're like .. somebody who huffs glue and can't infer what the gist of the existing policy is (hint: wear body cameras.) Why it's being cancelled is explicitly listed in the summary.
Do you just need to hear the sound of your keyboard or something?
Re:So cameras no longer have bodies? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the Summary: "The email said the agency made the change to be "consistent" with a Trump executive order rescinding the 2022 requirement that all federal law enforcement agents use body cameras"
Existing policy: "all federal law enforcement agents use body cameras"
Why it's being cancelled: "to be 'consistent' with a Trump executive order". If you're looking for an actual detailed well-thought out reasoning behind the EO? Good fucking luck, there's a long line of people waiting for similar answers.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite, the EO simply says they're no longer **required**, not to discontinue their usage. Considering that the DEA is probably second only to Customs/Border Patrol for grotesque levels of corruption I think it's obvious what the purpose of turning off the body cams is.
Re: So cameras no longer have bodies? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So cameras no longer have bodies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Some models are still sold with a 'Bulk Erase' button (many of the original ones were,otherwise cops wouldn't agree to wear them).
Re: (Score:1)
This is the kind of camera that the police officers strap to themselves while on duty so that it isn't only their word when they shoot someone.
Re: So cameras no longer have bodies? (Score:5, Insightful)
And which always seems to be off when they do
Re: (Score:2)
Well, now they won't have to worry anymore about the cams, won't they?
So they can shoot with more care, which should improve the chances of the collateral damage victims.
Right?
Re: So cameras no longer have bodies? (Score:5, Insightful)
And which always seems to be off when they do
That's actually reporting bias. The news stories you hear about body cameras being off became news stories because the police were getting sued or prosecuted.
If the body cameras show the police aren't doing the wrong thing, nobody is going to bring a lawsuit or criminal indictment over it, so you won't hear about any of those. The cases you hear about, therefore, are either the cases where either the police did the wrong thing (as proven by the body cameras) or the cases where the body cameras were turned off. This makes that number seem disproportionately larger.
Additionally, studies show that police who wear body cameras are significantly less likely to use unnecessary force, which dramatically lowers the number of situations where misconduct gets caught by body cameras. So the percentage of misconduct cases where the body cameras are turned off is not because the body cameras aren't doing their jobs, but rather because they are.
In other words, expect to see the number of accusations of misconduct by the DEA skyrocket. <sarcasm>But that's okay, because without the DEA being able to plant drugs on them, how would they be allowed to kidnap undocumented immigrants in the middle of the night and ship them to a concentration camp^W^Wprison in El Salvador?</sarcasm> [rolls eyes]
Yes, this is bad. This is incredibly bad. For everyone.
I don't see the numbers (Score:2)
Ignore all the statistics about body cameras and just look at the number of complaints for things like false arrest, planting evidence, excessive force or just plain outright executions in the street. There are a hell of a lot more of those than there ever should be. And 99% of the time the facts of the matter
All in the name of efficiency. (Score:5, Insightful)
How can a food-processing plant maximize their profit and production if they have to follow regulations that make them inspect their product for e-coli?
How can airlines maximize their profits and reduce delays if they have to follow regulations that make them inspect and document their aircraft?
How can police brutalize the maximum number of visible minorities in a given time period if they have to follow regulations requiring them to remember to "accidentally" shut off their body-cams before someone "resists"?
Re:All in the name of efficiency. (Score:4, Insightful)
...whilst ignoring what made it necessary...
Re: (Score:1)
...whilst ignoring what made it necessary...
Oh, yeah, we don't do that now. That all happened in the past, we're looking to the future! MAGA! MAGA! MAGA!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All in the name of efficiency. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to point out the obvious, Government doesn't exist to make profit.
Well, there is that civil forfeiture thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing, as soon as you look at society as a whole, these measures do exactly the opposite and reduce efficiency and wealth of society. Such a bizarre state of affairs!
Re: (Score:2)
How can police brutalize the maximum number of visible minorities in a given time period if they have to follow regulations requiring them to remember to "accidentally" shut off their body-cams before someone "resists"?
While I agree it will happen more to minorities, they will abuse anyone they think they can away with abusing. They don't care about race per se, just power. They want to make other people feel small while puffing up their own ego.
Efficiency my ass (Score:2)
All told muskrat is going to cost us around 1 trillion a year in uncollected taxes on top of the additional trillion per year that he wants to have taxes cut for the 1%.
We can either let our civilization completely collapse, whi
Get ready (Score:5, Insightful)
For drug busts for people who badmouth or otherwise oppose orange jesus.
Lack of Transparency, literally. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lack of Transparency, literally. (Score:5, Funny)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/bri... [whitehouse.gov]
This is the most transparent Administration in history.
Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a stupid move, but they aren't banning agencies from using body cameras, they just aren't requiring it.
Again, a dumb move, but I think it's telling which agencies are dropping body cams and which aren't. Federal marshals and ATF are keeping them. DEA is dropping them. I think we know which federal law enforcement agency needs much closer monitoring.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And it should be variable so they get control over "truth" and "facts" as well. The US is becoming more and more like north Korea.
Abuse has ended (Score:3)
It just means (Score:2)
More DEA officers are just going to die now without anyone knowing what actually happened "in the moment".
Re: (Score:2)
The DEA historically does a lot more killing in other countries than it does dying.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because it's easier for them to get away with more murder in other countries. That ratio in the US is going to change. On both sides of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Good.
DEA needs to ... (Score:2)
The BATFE needs to disappear as well. Move the criminal stuff to the FBI, the regulation of legal alcohol and tobacco over to the FDA and the revenue parts to the IRS.
Not a requirement, but ... (Score:2)
DEA Ends Body Camera Program ... to be "consistent" with a Trump executive order rescinding the 2022 requirement that all federal law enforcement agents use body cameras.
Your agents could still wear/use them, unless they've got something to hide. ...?
I remember this Administration promising to be "the most transparent"
What this means (Score:2)
They're not worried about effective oversight and they're dirty.
All the cops I ever worked with had the same story - resisted until they were forced, a bit of 'accidental' non-compliance and equipment damage, and then they notice the change and became converts as they had far fewer hostile interactions and harassment by suspects who knew they were being recorded. Complaints DROP when body cams come in.
Cops who want to get rid of body cams want to hurt people without getting caught. They shouldn't be watch
Re: (Score:3)
Considering it's the DEA, more likely they were just tired of having to pick up their bribes after hours. Much more convenient when they're on the clock.
I would think you would want a body camera.. (Score:2)
If you have body camera footage, you can use that to protect yourself. It shows that you were acting in accordance with department policies and the law in general. What if I had to shoot someone in the line of duty? Footage would back me up in my decision making when the mandatory investigation kicks off.
I suppose bad cops wouldn't want this but I still, maybe naively, believe most police forces at all levels are generally good people that understand the important of their job and how the rule of law brings
Re: (Score:2)
This is not "most police forces", it's the DEA, the biggest bunch of corrupt douchebags on the planet.
Lie about actions now. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now the DEA can lie about its actions again .
FTFY