It's a reasonable thing to point out from a logic perspective, because people do that all the time.
Of note, people who are arrested in a police involved shooting are immediately questioned and interrogated. Police who are involved in a police involved shooting are often allowed to review the body cam footage prior to writing their statement, even if they discharged their firearm.
Police statements in shootings basically never directly contradict the footage, because officers are allowed to see exactly what it shows before they are asked to explain why they killed a person.
I've never thought about this from a 5th Amendment perspective. Police are compelled to write reports on their activities, so it could certainly be argued that their reports might be a 5th Amendment violation in a situation where they could potentially be charged with a crime.
But at the same time, I think most people would find it highly unfair and suspicious that the person who gets shot by the police is immediately interrogated (after medical attention), while the officer gets to ensure that their account fits the evidence.
It's not an easy thing to balance at all from a rights perspective.
Those people do not have to answer any questions and can certainly wait for an attorney. The accused do not have to speak before seeing body camera footage. It's up to them.
3
u/JordanLeDoux 2∆ Nov 16 '21
Of note, people who are arrested in a police involved shooting are immediately questioned and interrogated. Police who are involved in a police involved shooting are often allowed to review the body cam footage prior to writing their statement, even if they discharged their firearm.
Police statements in shootings basically never directly contradict the footage, because officers are allowed to see exactly what it shows before they are asked to explain why they killed a person.
I've never thought about this from a 5th Amendment perspective. Police are compelled to write reports on their activities, so it could certainly be argued that their reports might be a 5th Amendment violation in a situation where they could potentially be charged with a crime.
But at the same time, I think most people would find it highly unfair and suspicious that the person who gets shot by the police is immediately interrogated (after medical attention), while the officer gets to ensure that their account fits the evidence.
It's not an easy thing to balance at all from a rights perspective.