Yes, just fixed it
Ring doorbell cameras announced a partnership with Flock, which in turn has already been sharing information with ICE.
“Law enforcement agencies using Flock software can now issue Ring footage requests specifying location, timeframe, and case details, a move first reported by TechCrunch.”
https://hrnews1.substack.com/p/ring-cameras-join-flock-and-amazon
Ring doorbell cameras announced a partnership with Flock, which in turn has already been sharing information with ICE.
“Law enforcement agencies using Flock software can now issue Ring footage requests specifying location, timeframe, and case details, a move first reported by TechCrunch.”
https://hrnews1.substack.com/p/ring-cameras-join-flock-and-amazon
Ring doorbell cameras announced a partnership with Flock, which in turn has already been sharing information with ICE.
"Law enforcement agencies using Flock software can now issue Ring footage requests specifying location, timeframe, and case details, a move first reported by TechCrunch."
https://hrnews1.substack.com/p/ring-cameras-join-flock-and-amazon
2
Fascist paramilitary invader in Minneapolis: "You raise your voice, I erase your voice."
(social.linux.pizza)
It does sound convincing. From Angle 6 (on crimesofice.org) you can also see the officer who would later murder the victim flinch after the first shot, which would be weird if he was the one who fired it. However, I am still unsure, the videos don't show that much detail to see whether the ICE agent in the gray jacket fired first or not :(
Thank you so much, you did an amazing job! I just uploaded the video to the website, and put the link of this post as the source. Let me know if you want me to change the source to "Anonymous" instead.
Yes, I just wished the narrator emphasized it more. In my very subjective opinion, I think it is a very important detail that the ICE agent shoots the victim even though he knows that he is disarmed. Without a gun, even IF the victim "violently resisted" as DHS said, the agents still wouldn't be in danger. I made a post about it here
Looks like the mp4 file there is corrupted, at least now. Even when I visit the video source, https://files.catbox.moe/083svh.mp4, it also doesn't work. Can you upload again please
You are right that in the first picture alone, you cannot clearly see what is on the waist that the guy in the gray jacket tries to grab/hold. However the screenshots are meant to show moments from the video, and in the video it is more clear that the gray jacket guy tries to take out the gun, which is also shown by him being the one who walks away with the victim's gun at the end (can be seen from other angles)
Still, it is always good to have objective proof. Hopefully these people will get prosecuted one day, and when that day comes, we will be ready with all the necessary evidence.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.4d2.org/post/2615333
This video is Angle 6 on crimesofice.org (see the 2nd page)
In this screenshot, we can see that the ICE agent clearly sees another ICE agent having his hand on the gun of the victim (the agent in the gray jacket disarms the victim)
Then, as the agent in the grey jacket steps away with the victim's gun, and the holster is visibly empty, the ICE agent still kills the victim.
view more: next ›
According to Ring's policy, they state that they ask for user's permission to get the footage. However, as the article mentions (but fails to provide the source actually) the Ring cameras have provided footage to law enforcement without a warrant or user's consent 11 times in 2022. Therefore while on paper, they are supposed to ask the user, there were already times when this was completely ignored, and could mean that the same could happen in the future.
The Intercept article about it (source that this article failed to include):
https://theintercept.com/2022/07/13/amazon-ring-camera-footage-police-ed-markey/
'Although Ring publicizes its policy of handing over camera footage only if the owner agrees — or if judge signs a search warrant — the company says it also reserves the right to supply police with footage in “emergencies,” defined broadly as “cases involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person.” Markey had also asked Amazon to clarify what exactly constitutes such an “emergency situation,” and how many times audiovisual surveillance data has been provided under such circumstances. Amazon declined to elaborate on how it defines these emergencies beyond “imminent danger of death or serious physical injury,” stating only that “Ring makes a good-faith determination whether the request meets the well-known standard.” Huseman [Amazon’s vice president of public policy] noted that it has complied with 11 emergency requests this year alone but did not provide details as to what the cases or Ring’s “good-faith determination” entailed.'
Also there is a NY Times article about it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/business/amazon-ring-doorbell-camera-police.html
"In the letter, Amazon’s vice president of public policy, Brian Huseman, also said that Amazon had shared Ring footage with law enforcement 11 times in 2022 using a process that does not require the user’s consent."