It’s either because they want to pretend it’s a civilized execution method by making it look better or because they want to keep the option of doing it wrong and making the victim suffer longer.

‘‘endured pain beyond the “10-to-15 second” window of consciousness that was expected.’’

So up to 15 seconds of agony is expected. Fucking barbarians.

There’s nothing illogical about it. Police uses body cameras because they do want to use them. Can you think of any law that was passed against police? There were huge protests demanding police reform and nothing happened. The only thing that activists “won” were the body cams. That’s because police and prosecutors find them useful. Sure, police was skeptical at first because the cameras were marketed as tool for accountability but as soon as they realized that they are actually tool for surveillance the adoption moved fast. That’s the whole point the articles I’ve linked make and you find so hard to understand.

The DEA will stop using them because Trump’s administration is incompetent and makes a lot of stupid decisions. Other agencies could stop using them but for now decided against it.

In another comment I posted a link to another study that shows police does not provide footage from most of police shootings. Yes, most of the time the camera is recording but most of the time only police can see the footage. That’s what they mean by "highly controllable evidence”. When it exonerates the officer they give to the TV stations in a matter of hours. When it doesn’t they hide it and you have to fight them in courts for years to see it.

Ok, this part may not be easy to understand. There were looking at use of force, citizen complaints, arrests and assaults on officers. The theory is that thanks to the use of body cams there will be less cases of use of force, less citizen complaints and less assaults on officers. The study says that in some of the evaluated body cam programs they found that those statistics didn’t change or that they got more cases of use of force, citizen complaints and so on. Basically, it’s not clear if the cameras help reduce police violence at all.

The second part (which you ignored) says that the cameras are actually used mostly to prosecute citizens, not police. Basically, thanks to the cameras police can easily prove offenses and convict people. Just like the first article said, police us body cams to surveil and prosecute people. Prosecutors like cameras because they make their job easier. You can deduct from this that police also likes cameras. Your claim that “police does not want to wear cameras” is baseless. There’s probably some opposition at first but once they et used to them it’s just another tool used to oppress people.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/research-body-worn-cameras-and-law-enforcement

“Across these evaluations, researchers looked at a range of outcomes, including use of force, citizen complaints, arrests, and assaults on officers. Four of the body-worn camera programs evaluated were found to have no, limited, or even negative effects.”

https://cebcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/BWCpaperLumetal.pdf

“Prosecutors, however, rarely bring cases against the police (Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993), and it remains to be seen whether this will change much as a result of BWCs. In their study of the use of BWCs in the courts, Merola et al. (2016) found that nearly all (93.0%) responding prosecutors’ offices in jurisdictions that use BWCs use them primarily to prosecute citizens. Not surprisingly, 80.0% of responding prosecutors in Merola et al.’s survey support BWC use by the police, and 63.0% feel cameras will assist prosecutors more than defense attorneys”

I know that probably no amount of research and evidence will change your mind but those are pretty easy to find so I just leave it here for other people to see.

Those headlines should read “They voted for their son to be put in ICE detention and now their son is in ICE detention”. Stop pretending they didn’t knew.

With body cameras, law enforcement agencies could expand their surveillance capacity, mitigate police brutality lawsuits, create “highly controllable evidence” against the largely poor, largely Black citizens of whom police often seek to capture footage, and quell social unrest by creating “comprehensive digital archives” of attendees at protests for social change"

Did you read this part? It pretty much contradicts everything you said.

It’s also a good idea if you’re white.

What’s next? Parenting without a cell phone? That’s crazy!

There’s always a small chance police officer will be held accountable but in vast majority of cases the system simply doesn’t work. Body cameras are part of that system. They are used to create evidence the police can control and use in their favor. In most cases they simply hide the recordings (https://www.propublica.org/article/how-police-undermined-promise-body-cameras?c_src=33685809.57194).

You should read this: https://prismreports.org/2024/07/16/complex-troubling-history-police-body-cameras/

"Long before body cameras were introduced to the public and found themselves in mainstream conversations about police reform, they were first peddled to police departments by tech companies and major corporations.

With body cameras, law enforcement agencies could expand their surveillance capacity, mitigate police brutality lawsuits, create “highly controllable evidence” against the largely poor, largely Black citizens of whom police often seek to capture footage, and quell social unrest by creating “comprehensive digital archives” of attendees at protests for social change"

“It was the 2014 police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, that would forever change the public conversation around police accountability and allow body cameras to take center stage. Almost immediately, body cameras were no longer being pitched behind closed doors to police departments, but were rather presented to the public as an invaluable tool for police “reform” and increased “transparency.””

Body cams were never a solution to anything. I remember multiple police murders recorded on body cams were the officer was acquitted by the jury. Police murder is basically legal in US*. Recording it doesn’t change anything. As for police brutality in general they simply learned to shout “stop resisting” when beating people up. Without basic accountability the recording are useless.

*It’s enough if police officer thinks he is in danger to make killing legal. Pretty much if he’s scared he can shoot. Body cams can’t prove he wasn’t scared.

Except Tesla never made good cars. It was always clear that real car manufacturers will learn to make good EVs before Tesla learns to make good cars. For some time Tesla was supported by fans who could ignore major design flaws and investors looking for short term profits. Long term best case scenario for Tesla was always to just become another, normal car maker.

But they look so cute! Who wouldn’t want to see this make a comeback:

Is this some wallpaper or something? I don’t recognize it.

The point is to limit time spent using Windows. Some people can take it down to 0%, others can’t. Spending 10% less time on Windows still let’s you learn about Linux and try different things. In couple of years you could change jobs or software and make it 50% Linux, then 90%… Not switching because you can’t immediately make it 0% windows, 100% Linux is basically saying “I would switch but it would require effort on my side and would be inconvenient”.

And yes, you’re right, it doesn’t make you lazy, sorry for that. It just means that you’re not really that bothered by using Windows and avoiding it is not worth the effort for you. It’s fine, just be honest about it.

About 20 years ago I would handle my email, IRC, watching movies and web browsing on Linux and each time I wanted to play Counter Strike I would reboot and switch to windows. After I was done with CS I would boot back to Linux. People who say they can’t use Linux because X doesn’t work there are just lazy.

The choice marked incorrectly or multiple choices marked.

Exactly as I said: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/06/friedrich-merz-suffers-shock-defeat-in-german-parliament-vote-for-chancellor