Critics are heavily criticizing a proposed Detroit police video ordinance, saying it's too weak and riddled with exemptions. The measure aims to require the Detroit Police Department to release video footage of serious use of force, but activists argue that it would still allow officers to shield themselves from accountability.
Under the current proposal, police would have up to 30 days to post video on a publicly accessible website. However, critics point out numerous loopholes that could give police an out. For instance, if the footage involves a joint task force or violates the police union contract, it can be withheld. Additionally, city lawyers can decide whether releasing the footage could harm Detroit in a civil lawsuit.
"We do not trust you [the police] so you need to send this ordinance back to the drawing board and come up with something that allows for less loopholes," Jacob Smith, a member of the Detroit Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression, told council members. "It's not even a good ordinance; it has more holes than a fishing net."
Other critics want stronger language in the ordinance, including provisions for alleged incidents of stop-and-frisk, racism, and sexual harassment or assault that causes less than "great bodily harm." They argue that police are already withholding footage from release, citing the need for editing to protect witnesses' identities.
"We've had three people shot by DPD in the last month. This is extremely important," said Victoria Camille, who's running for a seat on the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners. "Police video footage belongs to Detroiters as taxpayers, and the police department should not get a privileged seat to shape a narrative in advance of the public getting a full view of the unedited video."
A coalition of groups has proposed an alternative ordinance that would require releasing all unedited video, audio, and police reports related to use of force or pursuit within seven days. The footage would remain permanently accessible on a website managed by the Board of Police Commissioners.
"This is one of those documents that I do believe is ripe for amendment," said Councilwoman Angela Whitfield Calloway. "Everyone is not going to be happy with all of the ordinances we pass in the city of Detroit." However, critics argue that her version prioritizes police interests over public transparency and accountability.
The proposed ordinance has sparked heated debate among council members and community activists, who are pushing for stronger language on transparency and accountability. As one critic noted, "We've seen the police department get whiter and whiter... We want you to release it faster than 30 days."
Under the current proposal, police would have up to 30 days to post video on a publicly accessible website. However, critics point out numerous loopholes that could give police an out. For instance, if the footage involves a joint task force or violates the police union contract, it can be withheld. Additionally, city lawyers can decide whether releasing the footage could harm Detroit in a civil lawsuit.
"We do not trust you [the police] so you need to send this ordinance back to the drawing board and come up with something that allows for less loopholes," Jacob Smith, a member of the Detroit Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression, told council members. "It's not even a good ordinance; it has more holes than a fishing net."
Other critics want stronger language in the ordinance, including provisions for alleged incidents of stop-and-frisk, racism, and sexual harassment or assault that causes less than "great bodily harm." They argue that police are already withholding footage from release, citing the need for editing to protect witnesses' identities.
"We've had three people shot by DPD in the last month. This is extremely important," said Victoria Camille, who's running for a seat on the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners. "Police video footage belongs to Detroiters as taxpayers, and the police department should not get a privileged seat to shape a narrative in advance of the public getting a full view of the unedited video."
A coalition of groups has proposed an alternative ordinance that would require releasing all unedited video, audio, and police reports related to use of force or pursuit within seven days. The footage would remain permanently accessible on a website managed by the Board of Police Commissioners.
"This is one of those documents that I do believe is ripe for amendment," said Councilwoman Angela Whitfield Calloway. "Everyone is not going to be happy with all of the ordinances we pass in the city of Detroit." However, critics argue that her version prioritizes police interests over public transparency and accountability.
The proposed ordinance has sparked heated debate among council members and community activists, who are pushing for stronger language on transparency and accountability. As one critic noted, "We've seen the police department get whiter and whiter... We want you to release it faster than 30 days."
, you know? I'm all about holding our cops accountable, but this ordinance is riddled with loopholes that are gonna keep 'em in the dark. Like, what's up with the joint task force exemption? That's just a cop-out 
. And don't even get me started on city lawyers deciding whether to release footage - it's like they're trying to protect the department at all costs.
. The 30-day wait period just isn't cutting it. And what about those incidents of stop-and-frisk, racism, and harassment? We need stronger language in this ordinance to make sure our cops are held accountable for all that stuff.
. Releasing all unedited video, audio, and police reports within seven days would be a huge step forward in transparency and accountability. We can't just sit back and let our cops continue to shield themselves from scrutiny - it's time for some real change 
.
. If we don't trust our institutions like law enforcement, then how can we expect them to be accountable? But at the same time, if they're not transparent with us, then we can never really know what's going on behind closed doors 
.
. And then there's this issue with exemptions – if we can find loopholes like that, it just reinforces the idea that we're not really holding anyone accountable.
. We need to keep pushing for better laws and regulations until everyone feels seen and heard – especially in communities like Detroit where trust is already at an all-time low 
.
. The whole thing is a joke. First of all, 30 days? That's not even a decent buffer for accountability. What if an officer gets shot and needs time to recover? Do they just get to withhold the video until they're feeling better? 
And what about joint task forces or police union contracts? It's like they want us to believe that those are valid reasons to hide evidence from the public. I mean, come on! If you've done nothing wrong, why not release the footage?
. I want to see footage of officers using force ASAP! We shouldn't have to wait around for the police department to decide when it's convenient for them to release it.
. Can't we just make things transparent and honest? Do we really need to make deals with loopholes and exemptions? It's like we're playing a game where everyone loses except the police department.
.
how can there be loopholes that allow police to withhold footage? that's just not right! we need transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to serious use of force 
Councilwoman Angela Whitfield Calloway should reconsider her version if it prioritizes police interests over public transparency 
.
. Police video footage belongs to us, as taxpayers, and we should have access to it ASAP 
. And I love that coalition is proposing an alternative ordinance where all unedited video, audio, and reports get released within seven days 
. It's like, if we can't trust the police with our own records, how can we expect them to keep us safe? 
. We do need stronger language on transparency and accountability, but we shouldn't be prioritizing police interests over public safety 
. It's all about finding that balance – not too much, not too little 
. But then you got others like Councilwoman Angela Whitfield Calloway, who's all about finding a balance between giving the police some leeway and making sure the public gets access to the truth 
. If you want to create real accountability in law enforcement, you gotta be willing to make some tough choices and limit the loopholes that allow police to shield themselves from scrutiny 
meanwhile, activists r saying we dont trust the police to do whats right so they need to come up with somethin better 
but its hard to get support when there r already loopholes in place 
its not fair to taxpayers who r paying for this police department's mistakes 
and btw what's up with all these loopholes tho 
️
i mean we wanna see that footage ASAP so we can make sure justice is served 
. The idea of releasing video footage within 30 days is a good starting point, but those loopholes are major red flags 
. The police department shouldn't get to shape the narrative before the public gets a chance to see the unedited footage 
, but it's definitely worth considering. We need to hold our police department accountable for their actions 
I mean, I'm not saying we should have no limits on release at all, but 30 days is just too long to wait 
. And what about those instances of stop-and-frisk or racism that are still happening? That's where we need stronger language 
. The police department's gotta be held accountable for everything they do, not just the big stuff