> However, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, CPD officials explained that the lack of audio is due to the fact that the “sound doesn’t turn on until 30 seconds after the recording button is activated.” Chicago’s local ABC affiliate also similarly reported, “The body cam video that was released does not have audio as there is a 30-second delay when the officer turns the device on.” This is simply not true.
The "not tainting an ongoing investigation" excuse is particularly silly as in many cases the potential perpetrator is specifically granted access to the footage:
> A new report by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and Upturn Research to be released Tuesday shows that the vast majority of the nation's largest police departments allow officers to view the footage before writing a police report or being questioned by investigators during use-of-force cases. The group believes that policy undermines police credibility and runs the risk of influencing how the officer describes what happened.
The first article explains that the footage was not edited; the audio data simply wasn't being recorded until after the officer pressed the record button (the first 30 seconds were from a buffer with no audio).
And no, it's not a silly excuse. Just because current policy in some departments allows one potential witness's testimony (the officer's) to be tainted for procedural reasons (ensuring accuracy of the police report), doesn't mean we need to risk the same thing happening with _all_ witnesses. That's a ridiculous argument.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/protests-e...
> However, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, CPD officials explained that the lack of audio is due to the fact that the “sound doesn’t turn on until 30 seconds after the recording button is activated.” Chicago’s local ABC affiliate also similarly reported, “The body cam video that was released does not have audio as there is a 30-second delay when the officer turns the device on.” This is simply not true.
The "not tainting an ongoing investigation" excuse is particularly silly as in many cases the potential perpetrator is specifically granted access to the footage:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/should-police-get-to-view-bodycam...
> A new report by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and Upturn Research to be released Tuesday shows that the vast majority of the nation's largest police departments allow officers to view the footage before writing a police report or being questioned by investigators during use-of-force cases. The group believes that policy undermines police credibility and runs the risk of influencing how the officer describes what happened.