Footage should be held by some independent 3rd party who will follow the rules on releasing it. It shouldn't be up to the cops.

"In general, signalling theory says that if you have a good way of proving something and a noisy way of proving something, and you choose the noisy way, that means chances are it's because you couldn't do the good way in the first place."

— Vitalik Buterin

There's zero other reason to shoot

Pig could be a racist, an homicidal maniac (which seems to be a requirement for the job), a little coward with no trigger discipline hiding behind its gun (another requirement) firing due to a nervous spasm, it could have heard an acorn fall and thought it was under fire and started blindly shooting “defensively” (happens more often than you'd think), aiming at a playful neighbour's dog, under its monthly murder quota, being initiated into a cop gang, high off its mind on a cocktail of PCP, meth, and cocaine from the evidence room, or more probably some combination of most of those...

The problem with mass surveillance is that, for it to be impossible to abuse, it both must be and can't be publicly transparent.

If access is only provided to a small group and they are corrupt, it will be used against the out-group while denying the out-group any hope of using it for justice against the in-group. This is the current state of affairs right now with big tech, digital surveillance, and government CCTV.

If all the data was publicly available without safeguards—which is the only way to prevent the above problem—the problem shifts to it being used by bad actors for harassment and blackmail. No matter who you are, if you're always watched by a camera, you will be eventually be recorded accidentally or intentionally breaking a law or some moral code. For digital surveillance, something could easily be taken out of context and used to irrecoverably damage your reputation before you get the chance to defend yourself.

When the solution to either situation is the same problem causing the other, there is no middle ground or way to reconcile them. The only way to prevent both is to just not have mass surveillance, and instead provide a framework allowing the public to create recordings that can only be used to protect themselves.

It's not difficult to understand.

We hate the idea of only our government and the police benefitting from and having control over that surveillance. We hate the idea of being taxed so we can be constantly monitored, then prevented from accessing the surveillance footage we paid for when it could exonerate us or hold police accountable.

Surely you can understand it's more about who controls and benefits from the surveillance than the surveillance itself?

CCTV is not panacea from abuse of power, unfortunately. They have plenty of CCTV in Russia and yet there are still cases of power-tripping politicians/oligarchs/nepobabies. As per usual, video evidence is either disregarded or tucked away from society's eyes. Doubt heavy surveillance would do much for US or any country where law is not applied to everyone.

there's a lot of good replies here that approach the issue from different angles. the biggest one being "who benefits from mass surveilance." in this current climate, that is the cops. the cops have spent the last 15 years showing us that they are not accountable to anyone or anything. you propose that video evidence will help hold cops accountable. my issue is that we already have video evidence in many cases and they're still not. take it back to Rodney King, if you want. the cops have never faced consequence even when it's clear they're in the wrong.

so then what happens with more surveillance availabe? the police have an easier time carrying out their activities, which so often includes extra judicial killings. the reason us americans are wary of expanding the surveilance state is we've been doing that every year since 2002. none of us are safer. the extrajudicial killings have not stopped, they've only gotten more visible and are used as a form of terrorism. i understand where you're coming from that you find our attitude odd, but a lot of it stems from first hand experience that more evidence of police wrongdoing continues to not bring us closer to any police reform

I think it's understandable that people don't want technology being used in invasive ways, or as a means of control, but they're okay with it being used to determine if someone committed murder.

Yes, when you comply they might still kill you

Having said that, please stop using that "special language" or whatever the hell it is that you're using

It's called killing murdering, etc. "unaliving" is just dumb and shouldn't be used in a normal conversation

Correct. To cops, Floridians, and especially Floridian cops, black lives don’t matter.

A tiktok adult calling everyone a boomer who disagrees with their brainrot speech is pretty funny

That if you comply they still unalive you?

There's a reason they are required to wear body cam. They're the same brood that harbored the KKK.

lol, calling people complaining about you not speaking plainly "boomer".

Exactly. There’s no incentive to comply. They completely gave away their authority. Just kill them all.