• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    10 months ago

    I don’t see how this is transparency. Either way, the cop can just lie.

    I mean this is nonsense:

    California’s new law promotes these elements of procedural justice. During a traffic stop, for example, an officer who immediately shares the reason for the stop is being transparent. This allows the motorist to directly engage with the legitimate, legal reason for the stop rather than feel as if they are being interrogated for no reason or an ulterior motive. This more respectful form of communication makes police officers more accountable to those they wield power over.

    If a cop pulls a black guy over for ‘speeding,’ it’s still the cop’s word against theirs. The only difference now is that the cop doesn’t have to make the black guy guess which lie the cop is going to use.

    • xantoxis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      If a cop pulls a car over for speeding, and the motorist says “because I ran a stop sign”, the cop can now give two tickets. Removing the fishing question still makes the driver’s situation better.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        But how does the cop know if I’m lying or not

        I just wanted to distract him from the body in the trunk

    • APassenger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      10 months ago

      That and the dash cam.

      If you’re worried enough about police integrity, have a dash cam and have it on. I’ve seen videos (rare) where the cop lied about speed and the dash cam was used to knock it down.

      Even cheap ones could be used to figure out speed based on landmarks and time stamps. GPS speed would be more conclusive, though.

      • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        For that scenario all you’d have to do is pay a lawyer to file a motion of discovery, and the charges will almost certainly be dropped. You could probably talk a paralegal to do it for cheap, or your jurisdiction might allow you to file it yourself.

        It costs more to gather the evidence than they’ll get from the fine.

      • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I got a dashcam a few months ago and it’s already paid for itself several times over. I’ve been hit twice and it’s pretty easy for insurance to get the other party to pay when you’ve got video evidence that they’re in the wrong.

        • Zoot@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          How have you been bit twice in a few months? That sounds insane to me. 12 years since my last even bumper scuff.

          • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            I’m convinced it’s some cosmic irony caused by me buying a dashcam. Hadn’t had anything happen for about 10 years before that.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      This seems like a clear upgrade.

      Cop pulls you over, and immediately states the reason. They lied about you speeding? That’s ammunition for a defense. They said you were swerving? Dash cam footage might tell a different story.

      The effect on cops will be the biggest piece. They’ll stretch the truth or lie in court, because they have a script. They might not even remember the event.

      But suddenly, they have to choose to lie in the moment, they might even be caught in the lie before a judge

      It’s not everything, but it’s certainly something