All language subtitles for 1 1 Last.Week.Tonight.with.John.Oliver.S13E03.480p

Bye.

I'm John Oliver, thank you so much for
joining us. It has been a busy week, and

I mean really busy.

Trump, against zero odds, delivered the
longest date of the union in history.

The US and Israel attacked Iran, with
Israeli officials claiming they've

Ayatollah Khamenei. And look, we are
taping this on Saturday, so who the fuck

knows what's happened by the time you
see this.

Meanwhile, elsewhere, the Clintons
testified about their connection to

Epstein, and it turns out we might be
getting a new business, Daddy.

Netflix has backed out of its bid to buy
Warner Brothers Discovery, paving the

way for rival Paramount Skydance to take
over.

Yeah, not great news.

In fact, if I may quote anyone who's
ever accidentally sat on their Roku

oh shit, I'm in Paramount now, how the
fuck do I get out of this?

Also, last Sunday saw the US men's
hockey team win gold only for this to

A wild scene in the locker room, with
FBI Director Kash Patel even spotted

celebrating with the team, appearing to
chug a beer before raising the bottle in

the air, spraying it across the locker
room.

Yeah, that is the director of the FBI.

Looking like a little kid who won a
prize for collecting the most canned

and got to go into the locker room.

For all it's worth, he didn't chug a
beer, then spray it across the locker

A successful chug would render the
bottle unsprayable. What he basically

there was drink a beer weed and then
kind of fling his backwash around.

Anyway, it was fun while it lasted, but
it's official, hockey sucks dick now,

and sadly, not in the hot way.

Now, Patel's presence there was strange
for a number of reasons, not least that

his press office had insisted his trip
to the Olympics was for work.

trashing reports suggesting otherwise as
false and garbage but when his

itinerary was released it showed his
four -day trip contained only several

of work meetings and a handful of meet
and greets broken up by long segments of

personal and leisure time with his final
day consisting of just the gold medal

game followed by his flight home and
look Nothing against going to Italy and

getting a photo op. A couple of years
back, every living comedian but me

that same move, and I hear they had a
great time. But the work -to -play ratio

seems a little off here, and this was
just the latest instance of Patel

to use the FBI jet for personal trips,
which is a little rich coming from him,

given just over two years ago, he sat
down with Glenn Beck and complained

his predecessor's use of it like this.

Chris Wray doesn't need a government
-funded G5 jet to go to vacation.

Maybe we ground that plane.

15 ,000 every time it takes off.

This is odd.

Okay, so first, let me address this man
cave, because it has everything to hang

out with the void.

A chalkboard, a typewriter in a box, a
second camera in frame, and most

crucially, three staggeringly different
seating options.

You might all be talking, but those
pieces couldn't be less in conversation

each other.

But more importantly, the FBI director
is actually required by law to take the

Bureau's private plane, but crucially...

If the travel is personal, they're
required to reimburse the government,

only for the cost of a commercial
flight.

And Patel's been using the jet a lot
since he took off, to, among other

go to an exclusive golf resort in
Scotland for a getaway with friends, and

travel to a real American freestyle
wrestling event where his girlfriend was

performing the national anthem. He then
flew to Texas to a resort literally

called the Boondoggle Ranch.

Which would be bad enough even if it
didn't happen during the government

shutdown, and if he weren't hosted by a
Republican megadonor named, and this is

true, Bubba Salisbury.

Which sounds like either the name of a
baseball player from 1954 who was also

the Klan, or a dinner special at
Denny's.

And when Patel and his country singer
girlfriend went on a podcast with Katie

Miller, who is Stephen Miller's, let me
make sure I've got this right, wife?

He offered up this not great defence.

It's ironic that they're saying, oh,
you're going on vacation or you're going

see your girlfriend perform.

And if I was actually abusing it, I
would go see every one of her shows. I

I get to like 15%.

Oh, so that's okay then. We all know
it's not abuse if you don't do it as

as you technically could, you deeply
weird man.

And by the way, if you're expecting me
to show you a clip of his girlfriend's

music, I refuse to do that. I will just
point out that if you go to the YouTube

page for her song Country Back, about
how she wants her country back, and

down, the top comments read simply,
Damn, Patel borrowed a jet and went to

listen to this.

I'd love to agree with that, except
again, he didn't borrow the jet, we all

for it.

Thousands of dollars to take off, just a
thought. And the thing is, Patel's

Olympic trip wasn't even the first time
he's been accused of treating work like

a vacation. Last May, he went to the UK
for a meeting of the Five Eyes, an

intelligence alliance with close English
-speaking allies. And also, by the way,

my high school nickname, when bullies
determined something stronger than four

eyes was required.

And while Patel's UK itinerary was
tightly packed with important meetings,

according to one senior official, Patel
wanted to move them to more fun venues

because, quote, he wants premier soccer
games, he wants to go jet skiing, he'd

like a helicopter tour.

His staff only cared about three things,
what his meals were, when his workouts

would be, and what his entertainment
would be. The biggest plan is how he's

going to get his girlfriend in there so
she can go to Windsor Castle, which

feels like what a 15 -year -old boy
thinks a trip to England is.

Soccer, jet skiing. jet ski with James
Bond's boss and take your girlfriend to

the castle? I'm going to show her the
full agent Cody Banks.

And it can seem like Mattel's much more
interested in the trappings of his job

than the job itself. For instance, at
one point, he ordered special extra

challenge coins to hand out, which
looked like this. And I assume he hands

out after only the sickest quests, like
completing No Nut November or failing

anger management.

They look like the currency you use to
pay for a divorce.

But the thing is, this fixation on
optics can make him very bad at his job.

what happened last September after
Charlie Kirk was shot. Within hours,

took to Twitter to announce that the
subject for the horrific shooting today

now in custody.

Only two, 98 minutes later, have to
follow that with a tweet saying, the

in custody has been released.

And in the words of one FBI veteran, it
wasn't a good look. Which does make

sense, among other things.

Patel's first post sure made it sound
like people could stop worrying about an

armed shooter on the loose when that was
not the case. And yet, he stood by his

actions. Could I have worded it a little
better in the heat of the moment? Sure.

But do I regret putting it out?
Absolutely not. I was telling the world

FBI was doing as we were doing, and I'm
continuing to do that, and I challenge

anyone out there to find a director that
has been more transparent and more

willing to work the media on high
-profile cases or any case the FBI is

handling. Okay, but the FBI director
shouldn't be working the media for

You're supposed to be solving the case,
not providing running commentary.

There is a reason the CIA has never sent
out a press release saying, we think we

found an alien, and then 90 minutes
later had to say, never mind, it was

fucked up looking squirrel.

And the chaos in the Kirk investigation
continued once Patel landed in Utah.

Because according to one senior leader
in counterintelligence, Patel didn't

a race jacket and reportedly ordered
people to go find him one. He needed a

medium. They found him a female's jacket
that didn't have the patches that he

wanted. So he had the SWAT team taking
their patches off to put on his jacket

before he'd go to the press conference.
And sure enough, that is what he then

wore. Now, I do have to tell you, he
disputes that account and even went on

News to work. the media on the story.

I

mean...

Okay. Although, to be fair, Cash wearing
something with pride isn't exactly a

high bar, given he might be the first
FBI director who has his own apparel

And yes, that is a logo featuring Trump
as the Punisher, as Santa.

And yes, his hat does say K $H, which I
do get is supposed to stand for Cash,

but it makes him look more like he's in
a shitty Kesha cover band.

But wait, because it gets even worse,
because when Patel and his then -deputy

Dan Bongino joined a conference call
about the shooting, FBI officials were

apparently shocked by their fixation on
social media, with one saying of Patel,

he's screaming that he wants to put
stuff out, but it's not even vetted yet,

it's not even accurate.

Everyone on the call is just like, this
guy is completely out of control.

And let's just agree, you should never
be on any conference call thinking, this

guy is out of control.

At worst, you should be thinking, if I
died... Right now, would anyone notice?

Would anyone care?

And it says something that by the time
Kirk's alleged killer turned himself in,

Utah's Governor Spencer Cox had taken
the lead in handling the press, with the

source telling Fox News that, quote,
letting cash talk much could fuck up the

prosecution.

The point is, Patel seems in way over
his head. But weirdly, Trump might

actually like that right now, given that
there are certain areas where he might

prefer loyalty over competence. Most
notably, the Epstein case.

Because before Patel became FBI
director, he insisted that the agency

release an alleged list of people
Epstein had trafficked underage girls

he was incredulous the Republicans
hadn't already demanded that.

What the hell are the House Republicans
doing?

They have the majority.

You can't get the list?

You're going to accept Dick Durbin's
word or whoever that guy is as to who is

that list and who isn't and that it can
and can't be released?

Put on your big boy pants and let us
know who the pedophiles are.

Wait, wait, wait.

Put on your big boy pants?

I'm not sure that's the language I'd use
to talk about catching pedophiles.

Given it sounds more like the slogan for
a clothing line started by Jared from

Subway. But Patel's now singing a very
different tune, arguing there's no

credible information Epstein trafficked
young women to anyone beside himself.

And whenever the subject of Trump's name
being in the files has come up, things

have been noticeably tense.

Did you tell the Attorney General that
the President's name is in the Epstein

files?

During many conversations that the
Attorney General and I have had on the

of Epstein, we have reviewed. The
question is simple.

Did you tell the Attorney General that
Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein

file? Yes or no? Why don't you try
spelling it out? Yes or no, Director?

alphabet. Yes or no?

No. A, B, C, D, E, F.

Oh, you got him. You got him so good.

By the way, later in that hearing, a
photo showed Patel holding a note

Good fight with Swalwell. Hold the line.

And I don't know what would be a more
embarrassing explanation there, whether

wrote that note to himself or his mum
wrote it and flipped it into a Tasmanian

devil lunchbox.

And his defensiveness there is striking.
Now, the files are being released and

Trump's name is all over them. And while
that doesn't necessarily show evidence

of wrongdoing, this week, NPR
scrutinised the files and revealed

The spotlight tonight on what's not in
the millions of Epstein files released

the DOJ.

Summaries and notes from three separate
interviews the FBI conducted with a

Jeffrey Epstein accuser who also made
sex abuse allegations against President

Trump in 2019.

Yeah, that looks pretty damning. In
fact, the only thing that could be any

suspicious is if we eventually find out
that the night Epstein died, Trump was

caught buying a bunch of rope at Home
Depot.

And look.

I'm not sure how long Patel's going to
stay in this job. Trump's reportedly

displeased with his Olympics hijinks.
But as stupid as that locker room

is, and it's very, very stupid, it may
actually be the perfect encapsulation of

his tenure at the FBI. Because think
about it. He's in somewhere that he

belong, wearing something that makes him
look ridiculous, and objectively having

way too good of a time. And when all of
this is said and done, and he's

eventually gone, someone else is going
to have to clean up his fucking mess.

And now, this.

And now, the Dan Bongino Show is back,
and it is weird as fuck.

It is good to see you guys and ladies
out there.

It's been a crazy year.

For those of you watching the show right
now, we are obviously live.

My watch, well, anybody can set a time
and a watch, but you get the point. I

think it's fairly obvious.

And I'm going to tell you something. I
ate this morning for the first time in

three days. And, man.

I feel like a million dollars. So just
throwing that out there.

Elbow's a little sore this morning.

I was putting on a shirt the other day.
My elbow snapped back.

And it is, like, killing me. I had to
take an Advil when I got up. I'm like,

what the hell? Sorry, my eye is getting
a little red. I feel like I have a

little something in my eye there.

You see how it's a little red over
there?

I know. I drink funny. I told you. I got
arthritis in my elbow.

Nothing like being a dad.

I don't have any.

any boys. I got to tell you, I wish I
had.

I've got an older daughter and a younger
daughter, and they're pretty far apart.

I probably should have had one in
between and taken a shot. I'm one of

boys. I have a stepsister, but I never
had a, you know, a boy.

Hey, Dick.

Dicko.

Dickie.

Hey, Dicko, did you see that?

They call you Dicko, your friends.

Dickie, Dicko, something like... I
thought my friends called me Daniel.

they call him Dicko. I don't know. I
don't know.

I don't know.

You don't have to, like, speculate on
what... That was my

plastic cigar. Don't get distracted,
because if there's a there there, don't

into another there that's not there,
because it takes away from the there

there. Do you get my point?

Moving on.

Our main story tonight concerns the
police. The main thing Steven Seagal

pretends to be, aside from a guy whose
hair is naturally black. I'm sorry, but

the only way you get that color is by
dunking your head into a vat of printer

ink. Specifically, we're going to talk
about a particular tool police use that

is responsible for, among other things,
this incredible story.

A shocking scene for kids is a Chuck E.
Cheese. One minute they are just having

fun, and then all of a sudden, police
rush in and put Chuck E.

Cheese... handcuffs

Wow

there

is a lot going on there from the kids
screaming Chucky No

To the phrase, we're going to detain the
mouse, dude.

It sounds like what an ice agent would
say if Fievel tried to immigrate to

America today.

That arrest is one of many videos we've
only been able to see thanks to police

body cameras, the devices that give us a
nipple -to -eye view of law

enforcement's interactions with the
public. They are ubiquitous now, but

cameras are still fairly new. As
recently as 2013, only a third of police

departments had them, but by 2020, 79%.

of officers reported working in
departments with body -worn cameras, to

point it's been said that they represent
the largest new investment in policing

in a generation.

And body cams have been viewed as a
popular solution to problems regarding

transparency in law enforcement, which
may be why a key democratic demand right

now for ending the shutdown of funding
to DHS involves this catchy phrase.

We want there to be masks off, body
cameras on.

Masks off, body cameras on.

We want masks off, body cameras on.

Stirring stuff.

That is the leader of the opposition
there, and that is truly the best he's

Honestly, you can set a white noise
machine to fiery Chuck Schumer speech

get a full eight hours.

And the truth is, body cams can seem
like a great tool for increasing

accountability and building trust, and
cops themselves tend to value them too,

though for slightly different reasons
than the rest of us, as for them, it's

more about reducing frivolous or false
complaints. In fact, according to a 2018

survey, while just 34 % of local police
and sheriffs said they acquired body

-worn cameras to reduce use of force,
nearly 80 %...

wanted them in order to do things like
improve officer safety, increase

quality, reduce civilian complaints, and
reduce agency liability.

And look, ideally, you could have all of
those things. In fact, as this police

captain in Virginia sees it, the best
case scenario for body cams is them

improving everyone's behaviour.

When a camera is present, everyone acts
a little bit better.

So perhaps this is an opportunity for us
to de -escalate an incident. If

something is very, very escalated, it
will be a reminder to everyone involved,

to include the officers and the public,
that a camera is present and hopefully

that we all are acting a little bit
better, a little more civil to each

Well, that certainly sounds nice,
doesn't it? Although, when a camera is

present, everyone acts a bit better, is
an observation for someone who clearly

doesn't watch reality TV.

A world in which a camera's presence is
your cue to throw a glass of Pinot

Grigio into someone's face and call them
a whore in the middle of a nice

restaurant.

Still, that notion that body cams can be
a way of calming down interactions with

law enforcement is appealing, and it may
be why it seems we're about to slap

them on the chest of all ICE agents
across the country in the name of

accountability. But the thing is, the
more you look into body cams, the more

realise they are only effective if they
are used properly, and in many cases,

they are just not.

So given that tonight, let's talk about
body cams. Let's start with the fact

that straight away, there are certain
limitations to what they can tell us as

because of their field of view, they
can't capture the full context of

everything going on. And while I think
you probably already get that, just

as this Today Show reporter demonstrates
it in the weirdest possible way.

Seth is putting on a body camera.

My producer, Giovanna, is off to the
side shooting from a distance on her

to give us the complete picture like a
bystander would.

Scenario one, something Seth calls
deceptive intensity.

Watch this body camera footage closely.
What's happening here?

All right, now let's look from the
bystander's iPhone.

That's right, no brawl here, just really
bad dancing.

Okay, I will admit that demonstration
was effective because the body cam

did look like a violent brawl.

when we now know they were in fact doing
a Richard Simmons workout at each

other. And that's not the only weird
demonstration like that.

Interpretation can be very misleading.
For example, you, the viewer at home,

only see me from the chest up. You have
no idea what's in my hand. However, the

view from a second camera may show that
I'm holding what appears to be a gun,

when in reality, I'm just holding a
flashlight.

Okay. I'll be honest, that felt less
like a local news segment and more like

routine of the world's worst birthday
magician.

Gather round, kids, for my first trick.
You probably think I have a gun in my

hand, but it's actually a flashlight.

What's that? Your parents want their
money back? No problem. Here's their

Or is it actually another flashlight?

But those examples, while ridiculous, do
show how hard it can be to interpret.

what's captured on video. But the audio
can be deceptive as well. Take this

example from Florida, where the shouts
of officers wound up shaping a very

misleading narrative.

Officers were wearing body -worn
cameras, and they were chasing after an

individual. He walked over to the
sidewalk and lay down on the sidewalk,

-eagled.

You can hear on the body -worn camera
footage officers screaming, you know,

resisting, stop resisting.

He claimed that they beat him
unnecessarily and nobody believed him

video from the nearby building came out.

Yeah, they're yelling stop resisting
when he wasn't resisting at all.

And it can be powerful to claim
something's happening that the camera

see. It'd be like me telling you that
under this desk I've got the size of a

bodybuilder and an ass that won't quit
when the...

Truth is, I've got two perfectly average
thighs and an ass that quits all the

time.

And that's not a one -off. A similar
situation happened in the beating death

Tyree Nichols, where the audio on
officer's body cams picked them up,

things like, lay flat, only for another
video to emerge, showing him lying limp

as an officer handcuffed him. The point
is, there are immediately limits.

to what a camera can show you. But those
limitations get even more acute when

cops mute, obscure, or turn off their
cameras, which happens, and sometimes on

purpose. And that is something driven
home by this incident, where a police

captain who was arrested for drunk
driving kept urgently trying to convey

something to the officer who pulled him
over.

You been drinking tonight?

I just got a ride.

You been drinking tonight, sir?

I'm a captain on a police department.

What police department?

Oklahoma City.

I'm not turning my camera off. Okay.

Yeah, that is a police captain
whispering turn your camera off while

simultaneously staring into it like a
raccoon caught on a ring doorbell.

And it is genuinely hard to imagine a
more embarrassing way to get arrested

that, which is saying something because
you just saw someone get handcuffed

while dressed like a giant mouse.

And look, it makes sense that these
things have an off button.

Cops need to be able to take a shit in
peace like the rest of us.

And some of the people they talk to
might need their privacy protected too.

is why Connecticut, for instance, has a
law that says they have to turn cameras

off in cases like during an encounter
with an undercover officer or informant,

when an officer is on break or engaged
in personal business, and when a person

is undergoing a medical or psychological
evaluation or treatment. But obviously,

some critical interactions, when people
have been hurt or killed by police,

still go unrecorded. Well, you might
think, well, maybe the incident

suddenly and officers didn't... have
time to turn their cameras on you should

know most body cams are basically always
in a standby mode in which the camera

is powered on and rolling but not yet
permanently saving the footage. It's

when an officer presses record that the
camera will begin saving footage to

permanent memory. That saved clip then
includes footage recorded for a

predetermined amount of buffer time
before the record button was pressed,

can range from 15 seconds to 2 minutes.
So there's actually a meaningful amount

of context that can get captured prior
to an officer hitting record if that's

something they're inclined to do.

And yet oftentimes they just happen to
be turned off.

during incidents of police violence. For
example, even though the LAPD requires

officers to turn on their cameras before
any interaction with the public, nearly

a fourth of its officers involved in
incidents where serious force was used

failed to activate them in a timely
manner. And some unions and police

are quick to excuse that sort of thing.
For instance, not long after Houston...

rolled out body cams. Two police
officers shot a man near a gas station,

neither turned on their cameras until
the incident was over. And this is how

police union's then president defended
that.

This was the first real high -profile
test of this department's body -worn

camera policy.

Pass or fail? If the officers...

primary responsibility was his safety,
he passed.

If his primary responsibility was
videotaping the entire scene, he failed.

was your cameraman and only had to worry
about videotaping that, I would blame

that cameraman for not getting it. But
that's not his primary responsibility.

His primary responsibility is to make
sure he's safe and the public's safe.

Okay, but he didn't shoot someone.

My cameraman gets footage and has never
shot anyone. Well, doing this job at

least. I don't know what Dante does
during his off hours. That's his time.

Also, activating a body camera isn't
exactly an overwhelming task. We looked

into it and the process is, step one,
press the record button. Step two, end

steps.

But even if an officer does turn on
their camera, and even if it shows what

happened clearly, there's still the
issue of what happens to all the

Because to be clear, there is an
enormous amount of it. To give you a

scale, Axon, the nation's largest police
camera provider, offers cloud storage

for many of its clients' footage. And
its database is more than 100 petabytes.

equivalent to more than 5 ,000 years of
high -definition video, which is pretty

wild, isn't it? Both that there is so
much of it, and also that Pedabyte is a

real unit of digital storage, and not
what it sounds like, a snack food brand

exclusively for pedophiles. Pedabyte,
have a snack, you fucking monster!

And the thing is, most of that footage
will never be watched by anyone, which

understandable. It's impossible for
agencies to look at every minute.

footage from all these cameras, but far
too often, even footage that documents

misconduct isn't meaningfully reviewed,
meaning departments miss opportunities

to spot both problem officers and
broader patterns of abuse.

After the murder of George Floyd, it
emerged that body cams had captured

Chauvin kneeling on the necks of others,
including a handcuffed black woman and

a 14 -year -old black boy. In both those
cases, supervisors had access to the

recordings yet cleared Chauvin's
conduct.

And when a state civil rights
investigation later looked at 700 hours

cam footage, it found Minneapolis cops
repeatedly used neck restraints and

concluded that if police or the city had
conducted a substantive audit of the

footage, they would have seen how often
officers there were using neck

restraints and could have taken steps to
stop it. And clearly, someone should

have done that.

Because there's no point in the police
just stacking up...

thousands of hours of footage that
nobody's ever going to see, especially

that we all know that is Paramount
Plus's job.

Hey, what are they going to do?

Take us over and immediately cancel us?
I'm genuinely asking.

So, internally, departments aren't
reviewing their own footage nearly

And when it comes to public
transparency, the results have been all

map. And you might be thinking, well,
why not just put all the footage out

for everyone to see?

Well, the thing is, there are legitimate
reasons not to do that. First, there

are issues with how all that video could
be fed into facial recognition systems,

which we have talked about before.

But also remember, body cams can show
vulnerable or embarrassing moments,

can then be exploited for entertainment.

And I know we've already showed you a
couple of examples of that tonight.

But we thought a lot about why we were
doing that and how, in the mouse one,

face is covered.

And in the police captain one, you might
have noticed, he was a police captain.

Countless channels on YouTube that have
made a business out of obtaining body

cam footage of people in distress and
which do feel like they're leaning into

exploitation. One channel has videos
called Entitled Lady Finally Gets What

Deserves and Buckle Up Kids Grandma's
Drunk, which sounds like a kid's book

written by Kathy Lee Gifford.

Another channel has videos mainly of
young women with titles like 19 -Year

Girl Arrested for DUI Over Double the
Limit After Getting Drunk at the Beach,

which is pretty grim.

And by the way, we've blurred the faces
there.

But they don't do that. And it almost
makes me think that YouTube as a whole

might not have been worth it, offsetting
its very real accomplishments, like

this video of a chihuahua riding a
turtle, or this one of Kelsey Grammer

off a stage, or this one of a sheep
screaming like a human.

Yeah, that might be the best thing ever
posted to YouTube. And if you're

thinking, John, what about the several
hundred episodes of your show?

I said what I said.

Now, those channels often get videos
through public records requests, but

departments can have a huge amount of
leeway when it comes to what they

as in most places, policy makers have
defaulted to leaving them with the power

to decide what's recorded, who can see
it, and when.

Just watch as a reporter asks Charlotte,
then police chief, how to reconcile his

commitment to transparency with his
department's refusal to release video of

police shooting.

You seem to get mixed messages here. On
the one hand, you're saying we should

have full transparency.

On the other hand, you're saying you're
not going to release the video. How can

you square those two things?

Obviously, the idea of full transparency
is release the video so we can all see

it. Sure, I appreciate your passion, but
I never said full transparency.

I said transparency, and transparency is
in the eye of the beholder.

Wait, wait, wait, wait.

Wait, wait, wait.

Transparency is in the eye of the
beholder?

That is just fully nonsense.

That sounds like the last thoughts of a
pigeon that's about to smash into a

closed window.

And yet, that has been the de facto
stance of many departments.

For example, even though in 2020, the
NYPD promised to release footage of

critical incidents within 30 days, when
ProPublica looked into it three years

later, they found that out of 380 such
incidents, the NYPD had released footage

within a month, just twice.

And in South Carolina, when the police
there had killed at least 19 people in

2023, they'd only released footage in
three of those cases, with one

refusing a request by saying, we never
released that footage.

And a popular argument police use is
that making video public would undermine

the integrity of an investigation. It's
an excuse which works in almost every

state in the country, even when there's
rules for public access.

They'll also argue that reviewing the
footage and redacting sensitive

information like juveniles' faces or
witnesses' identities carries a

cost. In Las Vegas, police charged about
$70 an hour to produce footage, while

in Memphis, journalists have been asked
to pay as much as $3 ,100 in hourly

labour costs for video from a single
case.

And as one expert said, for a local news
organisation, a bill for $2 ,000 might

as well be a denial.

Which does make sense, doesn't it?
Because local news are known for a lot

things. Dedicated employees, probing
investigations, inadvertently

massive dicks on their weather maps. But
they're not famous for rolling in

money. And even if footage gets
released... it can be so heavily

then essentially useless. For example,
until last year, Tempe, Arizona's police

department had a policy which mandated
that all body cam footage they released

would include a general medium blur.

And just so you know, this is what their
blurred footage looks like.

And it is notable that when body cam
footage shows officers in a bad light,

will often cite the cost and technical
hurdles of redaction to not release it.

But when it shows them in a good
light... Those problems seem to

Just watch as a reporter in Texas
confronts a police chief who was

because they didn't have the ability to
redact videos themselves, they couldn't

release a video of a police search
during a traffic stop.

In the year 2024, why doesn't this
department have software to redact

It's really...

expensive for us to get. Angleton Chief
Lupe Valdez showed us a quote from their

body cam vendor, more than $14 ,000.

Budget -wise, it's not in our budget to
do that.

But there's this.

Body cam video Angleton police released
a few months ago of a crash where

officers heroically pulled the driver
out of the burning car.

And look, portions are blurred.

How were you able to redact the video in
that case? We paid somebody to do that.

So, let me get this straight. When your
officers are heroes, you find a way to

release it, but when your officers are
scrutinized, you find a way to withhold

it? No, sir.

That's what happened here, Chief. No,
sir.

Uh, yes, sir.

That is exactly what happened. That
interview could not have been any more

embarrassing for that man, which is why
I'm sure he'd prefer if we blurred him

right now.

But I'm not going to do that, because
much like him, I only pay people to

video when I fucking feel like it.

But maybe no case illustrates the extent
to which the mere presence of body cams

isn't sufficient to prevent police
violence or indeed bring accountability.

More than that of Ronald Green, a
Louisiana man who died following an

with police in 2019.

Officers initially told his family that
he died on impact after crashing his car

at the end of a chase with police. And
even though there was body cam footage

from officers on the scene, state
officials, including the then governor,

repeatedly refused to publicly release
it for more than two years.

In the end, someone wound up leaking the
video to the AP, which is how people

came to see a trooper wrestling Green to
the ground, putting him in a chokehold

and punching him in the face. And I'm
not going to show you the video of any

that. But I do think it's worth seeing
one moment from one of the officer's

cams as he drove away from the scene.

I beat the ever -living fuck out of him,
choked him and everything else trying

to get him under control.

And then all of a sudden he just went
limp.

Yeah, I thought he was dead.

We set him up real quick.

He's on the ambulance en route to
Glenwood, and I'm hauling ass trying to

up to him.

You think he'll... Y 'all got no body
cam?

Yeah. As soon as he was reminded his
body camera was on, he turned it off.

Which is pretty damning. It is honestly
the panicked move of someone whose

internal monologue was essentially just
this.

Yeah, exactly.

Now, none of the six officers on the
scene wound up facing much in the way of

charges. The guy in that video actually
wound up dying the following year in a

car crash. As for the other five, only
two were convicted on any charges, and

those were misdemeanors pled down. But
charges against the other three were

dismissed, and the DOJ dropped its
criminal investigation, saying it had

insufficient evidence to support federal
charges.

But that might be because even though
there was body cam footage, the

microphones weren't always on and not
all of the troopers at the scene had

cameras on during the arrest. And that
does not seem like a coincidence

because... the AP found state troopers
there had made a habit of turning off or

muting body cams during pursuits, that
when footage is recorded, the agency

routinely refused to release it, and
that one supervisor in the department

told internal investigators that it was
his common practice to rubber stamp

officers' use of force reports without
reviewing body cam video.

And if you're not even going to watch
the footage...

Why give your officers body counts at
all? You might as well just let them

a bologna sandwich off their shirt
instead.

It'll lead to exactly as much
accountability, and they'll have a

snack in case they get hungry.

And the truth is, if someone hadn't
leaked that footage, we'd likely never

known about any of this. But hoping for
leak just cannot be the system here.

What do we do? Well, I would argue we
have to take back the power from police

departments to decide when and how to
use body cams. Some agencies are

transitioning to auto -triggering
technologies like sensors that switch

when officers do things like draw their
gun or exit their police car.

Experts told us those aren't necessarily
bad ideas, but...

They're likely to fall flat if they
aren't combined with clear, enforceable

rules, stating the footage must be
retained, routinely reviewed, and

a timely manner, especially in critical
incidents.

One way of doing that is to have those
rules enforced by an independent body,

free of police influence.

And all of this is really worth bearing
in mind during the current debate over

requiring federal agents to wear body
cams during immigration enforcement,

because it's worth remembering a pretty
important fact.

about the officers in the Alex Preti
shooting.

Customs and Border Protection officers
involved in the deadly shooting were

wearing body cameras. The agency says
the footage is preserved, but it's

when or whether the public's going to
see it. Can I ask you a question? Why

isn't it automatic that the body camera
footage would eventually be released?

You'd think it would be. Here, though,
the Trump administration has resisted

cooperation with any investigation.

And, George, remember, they've already
drawn a conclusion that the shooting was

justified.

Yeah, they still haven't released the
body cam footage.

Kind of rendering that whole masks off,
body cams on slogan pretty toothless.

Though, to be fair, I guess masks off,
body cams on and operating under clear

guidelines about when footage is
released and overseen by an independent

ensure maximum transparency isn't quite
as catchy. And if Chuck Schumer tries to

say it, I think his head might explode.

The point is... The reason we know what
happened to Alex Preti isn't because of

body cams. It's because of all the other
people with cell phones filming what

happened. And that is going to need to
continue.

Because until we see significant
changes, body cams will just never live

their promise of shining a real light on
misconduct. And if you need a visual

metaphor for light being shined on
things, don't worry, because I have in

hand, and this may surprise you, a
flashlight!

That's our show.

Thank you so much for watching. We'll
see you next week. Good night.

Don't blur me. Don't blur me.

Don't blur me. I don't want to be
blurred.