Virginia woman shot herself through the mouth while handcuffed, officials say - Sensationalist Headlines

On the other hand I do recall reading the body camera policies for some police department and it stipulated that officers must turn off their cameras in situations where they'd violate the privacy of others, such as entering a home and not having permission to record the home. So I'm honestly not sure what to do. Following this policy requires that officers be able to essentially turn off body cameras at their own discretion, which means they can just hide crimes.

I disagree. It is important to hold officers accountable, but it is equally important to not degrade their own rights simply because of the profession they are in. If that is the solution, it is a lazy one. Everyone wants good cops, people who are good, and can be held accountable. But, if you treat them otherwise you'll just drive off people.

Revolver

Since she was apparently trying to recover a gun from the car while handcuffed, is it not possible that she was grasping it with her teeth, and accidentally fired it? Or if she did somehow get it in her hands, she could have contorted around to see what she was doing, and try to shoot her cuffs off. And she fucked up big time. I dont think we should just immediately assume some psycophathic cop executed an already-cuffed woman for no reason. I know there are a lot of problems with police using lethal force when it's not called for, but honestly a deliberate killing is less likely than an accident in this situation, given the details in the article.

>Officer acknowledges call/arrives on scene, laptop sends record signal to camera >Officer gets out of range of laptop -> Doesn't matter, camera is still recording >Officer called off of scene/duty fulfilled, returns to squad car, logs data into laptop, log uploaded to HQ, verified, recording "stop" signal sent to camera

it doesn't seem that likely that an officer would just decide to shoot her in the mouth tbh It's plausible but it doesn't seem like the reasonable conclusion.

I just tested, it is 100% possible to pickup and point a handgun at your head (admittedly not with great stability) while your hands are cuffed behind your back.

Yeah but if it's a handgun it's possible to still use it and press the trigger while cuffed, it's just a matter of twisting your hand in such a way that you can point at your own brain. Does that mean I buy this story? No.

Assuming they are setup correctly, they also automatically start saving when you flip on the lights. A few notes about body mounted recording devices from someone who wears one: 1.) I have had it turned off, I have had it thrown, and I have had it physically crushed during fights. Shit really does happen. All the shit that is attached to you can go flying. 2.) I make use of the pause audio button with some regularity. Much of police work sits in a legally grey area, more than you might imagine. A lot of times doing the right thing can get you in trouble in court. For instance lowering the recorded speed for a speeder is legally questionable, but I often drop a few miles per hour off a ticket in order to ensure positive relations in the future. I will pause audio and explain what I'm doing. We also all pause audio for jokes. Of which there are many, but they are not court appropriate. No, this won't change. Jokes are a necessary part of recovering from a fight or other stressful situation. I have never seen an officer intentionally disable their watchguard to do something illicit. 3.) Some scenes never need to see a courtroom. Parents clutching their deceased children. People's worst days are caught on audio and video. A lot of it is necessary for court, but a lot of it absolutely isn't. All of it becomes a matter of public record and discoverable in court. From the outside looking in, I understand that it seems cut and dry, but it isn't as simple as it seems. Our department only uses video for k9 units. The rest of us only get audio and dash cam. We are probibited, by policy, from supplying our own bodycams.

Okay, so why did the officers' bodycam ~just happen~ to be turned off during the event? It may not seem that likely, but it's still the most likely explanation given the context. In any case I don't really think police officers should be given the benefit of the doubt when they're visibly incapable of using their bodycams for their intended purpose. The footage is meant to exonerate them when they're in the right, but also as evidence against them when they're not. Right now it seems they're trying to have their cake and eat it too by only enabling it in the former situations, and conveniently turning it off in the latter. I'll just assume that the officer is doing something fishy when footage is conveniently missing in suspicious contexts. It that's what it takes to get proper police accountability, then so be it. I'm sure officers would learn very quickly to record properly when necessary if that were how it works.

Depending on how skinny she is she could also easily just pass the cuffs under her legs then shoot herself. But theres not enough info to draw conclusions. Gunshot residue and fingerprints of who was actually holding the gun that killed her would make it more clear. Making this into a witch hunt isnt going to help anyone.

Officer's bodycams ~just happen~ to be turned off all the time for a huge number of reasons. Obviously malicious actors are going to turn theirs off before they do something horrible, but officers might turn them off for a huge variety of reasons, people don't like being recorded in general. For the record, I think officers should be forced to wear cams at all times that do not stop recording no matter what, and save their video encrypted, only to be viewed when relevant.

Ahh that makes more sense than the constant contact idea I thought you were talking about.