Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on December 02, 2014, 10:40:12 AM
-
This is a good example as to why LEOs (and their unions) should want officers to carry a wearable camera:
http://twitchy.com/2014/12/02/police-state-michigan-cops-defend-stopping-black-man-for-walking-with-his-hands-in-his-pocket-in-the-snow-video/
-
You over estimate the intelligence of unions
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I remember hearing/reading a report about Canadian police officer's experience with body cameras. The amounts of suspected AND reported abuse dropped dramatically on BOTH sides.
To summarize: Per the study it appeared that both actual assaults and false reports of assault* dropped significantly when the cameras were put in place, on both sides of public-police interaction.
IE the public stopped abusing the police officers as much, the police officers stopped abusing the public as much, and everybody became more truthful in their reports.
-
I remember hearing/reading a report about Canadian police officer's experience with body cameras. The amounts of suspected AND reported abuse dropped dramatically on BOTH sides.
To summarize: Per the study it appeared that both actual assaults and false reports of assault* dropped significantly when the cameras were put in place, on both sides of public-police interaction.
IE the public stopped abusing the police officers as much, the police officers stopped abusing the public as much, and everybody became more truthful in their reports.
I wonder if we could rig up a system (of beliefs, maybe?) whereby most folk could be convinced they are being watched and will eventually be held to account for their actions even if there is no _hard_ record of them? We might then be able to have a much smaller government than we presently have as most folk generally ruled/disciplined their own selves. Yeah, crazy talk.
-
I wonder if we could rig up a system (of beliefs, maybe?) whereby most folk could be convinced they are being watched and will eventually be held to account for their actions even if there is no _hard_ record of them? We might then be able to have a much smaller government than we presently have as most folk generally ruled/disciplined their own selves. Yeah, crazy talk.
I was oppressed just reading this. Check your privilege shtlord, I'm not getting into your heterocage.
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10675768_10105599508846264_382641705906821668_n.jpg?oh=eab09262ced800292b96966257ad2fd6&oe=54E03892)
-
How ironic that the place we most need cameras, were in fact promised more cameras, is advocating for cameras everywhere else but there...The White House.
-
Yeah, maybe Obama should lead by example.
On police cameras, I think it is a good idea. Having them keeps potential bad cops honest as well as keeping honest hoolums who want to bait cops into doing something.
However, with the freedom of information act, we will have people getting hold of video of cops joking around with each other and putting the beat down on people who deserve it. Of course, those videos will still be cut up and edited by media and activists. It won't end controversy, but should still help a great deal with actual evidence/court issues.
-
I wonder if we could rig up a system (of beliefs, maybe?) whereby most folk could be convinced they are being watched and will eventually be held to account for their actions even if there is no _hard_ record of them? We might then be able to have a much smaller government than we presently have as most folk generally ruled/disciplined their own selves. Yeah, crazy talk.
You mean like the ubiquitous security cameras in the large cities of the UK?
-
I wonder if we could rig up a system (of beliefs, maybe?) whereby most folk could be convinced they are being watched and will eventually be held to account for their actions even if there is no _hard_ record of them?
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sake
-
How ironic that the place we most need cameras, were in fact promised more cameras, is advocating for cameras everywhere else but there...The White House.
If they'd had cameras in the White House during the Clinton administration, they'd still be making money from the footage on pay-per-view in seedy motels . . .
-
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sake
But today, rather than a punishment, you'd be lucky to get coal in your stocking...
-
You mean like the ubiquitous security cameras in the large cities of the UK?
More like lots and lots of people with undetectable body cameras. Imagine if you had a recording of everything everyone had ever said or done to you, and all of it was admissible in court.
-
I think body cams on cops is a good idea, and I'm glad our fearless leader wants to help make it happen. However, I am upset and angry that fearless leader persists in propagating the notion that only black people fear or need to fear jack-booted thugs wearing uniforms. He makes it seem like no white person has ever been caught in a speed trap, or that no white person has ever been subjected to rude treatment, unnecessary and excessive force, or even death by the police.
The fact is, the increasing militarization of the police is a threat to ALL people, of ALL colors. It needs to be addressed, but it can't/won't be addressed (properly) as long as the PTB* use it as another race baiting tool to advance their "poor me" agenda rather than facing the underlying problem straight-on.
* Powers That Be
-
More like lots and lots of people with undetectable body cameras. Imagine if you had a recording of everything everyone had ever said or done to you, and all of it was admissible in court.
38 out of 50 states are one-party consent states. That means you only need your own permission to tape conversations. The problem is that the cops know how to delete recordings. I read an article over the weekend about a guy who had an unhappy encounter with a cop. He had recorded the incident, but the cops confiscated his tablet and, when he got it back, the record of the incident wasn't there.
Fortunately for him, his tablet was synched to some cloud service and he was able to restore the recording.
-
It is an interesting idea...it preserves every encounter as evidence, one way or the other. Issues that come to mind:
- The system would need some protection to prevent deletion of bad LEO behavior, for obvious reasonsyou're orsystem would also need to have some way of protecting the officer's privacy during bathroom breaks, etc.
- There is also the concern about the privacy of anyone the officer encounters through the day. Don't want every encounter, especially non-evidentiary encounters (like asking a kid walking home how school is going, or asking a mother how her son is doing b in rehab, etc). FOIA/public records requests would put a lot of this out in b the public eye.
- There are some police encounters that need to be out of the public eye...like a conversation between an officer and someone willing to share information, but not wanting their name or identity know...you know, the man you are chasing ran that way, etc.
One last concern isn't just about this, but the evidentiary value of digital recordings or photos in general. As the software and technology keeps getting better, images can be altered more easily. Incriminating photos can be generated , videos can be altered. It's a growing concern in the court system, for which there is no easy answer I know of.
-
I've read that some states (Illinois?) have actually enacted laws that prohibit filming cops in public. (What were the legislators trying to hide?)
I also think I read that these laws haven't held up very well in court.
One last concern isn't just about this, but the evidentiary value of digital recordings or photos in general. As the software and technology keeps getting better, images can be altered more easily. Incriminating photos can be generated , videos can be altered. It's a growing concern in the court system, for which there is no easy answer I know of.
What utter nonsense.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.sodahead.com%2Fprofiles%2F0%2F0%2F1%2F4%2F1%2F4%2F8%2F4%2F7%2FObama-With-Space-Alien-44202838910.jpeg&hash=37304fc0eac25c7b3c713664c3895a2834bd1512)
-
Has anybody actually looked at body-camera video? It's worse than "survellience camera" video.
What folks want is a camera crew, like on COPS, following Ossifer Friendly. It aint happening.
stay safe.
-
I wonder if we could rig up a system (of beliefs, maybe?) whereby most folk could be convinced they are being watched and will eventually be held to account for their actions even if there is no _hard_ record of them? We might then be able to have a much smaller government than we presently have as most folk generally ruled/disciplined their own selves. Yeah, crazy talk.
Guys, I think he's talking about religion.
I was going to start a thread about "body-cameras," and ask if we really want the police to be constantly filming us. Shouldn't there be some rather strict laws about when police are to have the cameras on, and when they must be off? In the public restroom, for instance.
-
And then there needs to be a way to handle foia . In va the recordings are public record which means anyone can ask for a copy. It's a new pain in the butt to be handled.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I was going to start a thread about "body-cameras," and ask if we really want the police to be constantly filming us. Shouldn't there be some rather strict laws about when police are to have the cameras on, and when they must be off? In the public restroom, for instance.
I honestly hadn't thought about the camera being on as officer walks into a public bathroom, catching images of things no one wants to be seen.... yet another issue that should be addressed before, instead of trying to clean up the mess afterwards.,.
-
Has anybody actually looked at body-camera video? It's worse than "survellience camera" video.
What folks want is a camera crew, like on COPS, following Ossifer Friendly. It aint happening.
stay safe.
No, I don't want a camera crew. I think a drone with overhead footage with fulll audio would be closer to what I want. TV cameras typically capture a very narrow view of what is going on unless they are standing way back. That is often the problen now. If video exists, it often doesn't show the full time frame of the event or only shows part of action.
-
What would you say to some sort of law making it illegal to edit or revise the camera footage? Maybe have that cover things like 911 calls? I am thinking of stuff like the new media editing the Zimmerman 911 call to make him look rascist or other people who have edited footage of police. Not sure if is a good idea or it could be done right. Just thinking there should be consequences. Maybe just make libel/slander easier to sue for in such cases.
-
What would you say to some sort of law making it illegal to edit or revise the camera footage? Maybe have that cover things like 911 calls? I am thinking of stuff like the new media editing the Zimmerman 911 call to make him look rascist or other people who have edited footage of police. Not sure if is a good idea or it could be done right. Just thinking there should be consequences. Maybe just make libel/slander easier to sue for in such cases.
I was thinking the same thing, maybe have the camera be triggered automatically when the officer starts a radio conversation with dispatch, but also give the officer a chance to start camera if they see a crime in progress before they can call dispatch.
Also agree with the speedy libel/stander charges if the media or independents modify the footage, but also in reverse for the LEO and office if they edit the raw footage. Like a minimum incarceration time for all this found guilty, make it a felony to tamper with the footage.
-
I was thinking the same thing, maybe have the camera be triggered automatically when the officer starts a radio conversation with dispatch, but also give the officer a chance to start camera if they see a crime in progress before they can call dispatch.
Also agree with the speedy libel/stander charges if the media or independents modify the footage, but also in reverse for the LEO and office if they edit the raw footage. Like a minimum incarceration time for all this found guilty, make it a felony to tamper with the footage.
I'm wondering if simply making it illegal for the gov reps to alter footage or else having secure, limited access storage facilities for their footage wouldn't solve most of the problem. While the media should be held to a higher standard regarding "creative" editing, I think it would be difficult to force that on private individuals. Having the raw footage available to "compare and contrast" would alleviate creative edits, such as occurred in the OP. Certainly the libel/slander option is viable for especially egregious edits. In a civilized society, public shaming would solve the problem, however our society is becoming more and more shameless.
-
A former soldier of mine was recently hired as the Chief of Police for a town here in Illinois. He was telling me about the cameras that's he's buying for his department. Body mount with a button on the side of it. It's in "passive record" mode until the officer hits the button. Then it begins recording and also goes back and uploads the previous 2 minutes of "passive recording" to the computer at the station (the camera is link via the patrol car).
So the officer can go take a dump and know that two minutes after he's done wiping, all that is "recorded over". However, when he out interacting with Joe Public, the two minutes prior to him hitting the button will included in part of the recording that he's making. IIRC I think he said something where the camera automatically begins "active" recording once the siren and/or lights are turned on.
So drive around on patrol, when you interact with Joe Public either hit the siren/lights or if you get out of the car and push the button on the side of the camera and everything is uploaded to the Dept computer.
-
We recently started a test of some police officers in Spokane wearing a body camera. So far not much of anything, other than the cop that shot a guy one night. The cop was one of the "test" wearers of the camera, too bad he didn't turn it on when he was in hot pursuit, doing a PIT maneuver, or when he exited his cop mobile and "had" to shoot the guy because he was going to run over the cop. =|
bob
-
I'm wondering if simply making it illegal for the gov reps to alter footage or else having secure, limited access storage facilities for their footage wouldn't solve most of the problem. While the media should be held to a higher standard regarding "creative" editing, I think it would be difficult to force that on private individuals. Having the raw footage available to "compare and contrast" would alleviate creative edits, such as occurred in the OP. Certainly the libel/slander option is viable for especially egregious edits. In a civilized society, public shaming would solve the problem, however our society is becoming more and more shameless.
My problem is I think media and 3rd parties should be held accoutable for edited footage. I was thinking Zimmerman or someone else in a similar situation tried to sue, but it ended up getting kicked out. I don't remember the details. I think it was NBC that edited the 911 call and they should have been made to pay. I guess that only works if someone like GM is sueing.
-
A former soldier of mine was recently hired as the Chief of Police for a town here in Illinois. He was telling me about the cameras that's he's buying for his department. Body mount with a button on the side of it. It's in "passive record" mode until the officer hits the button. Then it begins recording and also goes back and uploads the previous 2 minutes of "passive recording" to the computer at the station (the camera is link via the patrol car).
So the officer can go take a dump and know that two minutes after he's done wiping, all that is "recorded over". However, when he out interacting with Joe Public, the two minutes prior to him hitting the button will included in part of the recording that he's making. IIRC I think he said something where the camera automatically begins "active" recording once the siren and/or lights are turned on.
So drive around on patrol, when you interact with Joe Public either hit the siren/lights or if you get out of the car and push the button on the side of the camera and everything is uploaded to the Dept computer.
Sounds like a workable idea.
Would there be any penalty for taking off the camera or disabling it?
-
We recently started a test of some police officers in Spokane wearing a body camera. So far not much of anything, other than the cop that shot a guy one night. The cop was one of the "test" wearers of the camera, too bad he didn't turn it on when he was in hot pursuit, doing a PIT maneuver, or when he exited his cop mobile and "had" to shoot the guy because he was going to run over the cop. =|
bob
Hence the problem. Cops do not want to wear cameras. It would make them more accountable.
-
My problem is I think media and 3rd parties should be held accoutable for edited footage. I was thinking Zimmerman or someone else in a similar situation tried to sue, but it ended up getting kicked out. I don't remember the details. I think it was NBC that edited the 911 call and they should have been made to pay. I guess that only works if someone like GM is sueing.
Don't get me wrong, I believe the media should be held to a higher standard and be absolutely legally accountable for editing footage to change or hide the truth. I'm just thinking it would be more difficult to hold Joe Schmo facebooker accountable for edited content vs the media, hence the need for secure raw footage of cop cameras that is easily accessible (i.e., not just accessible only if it exonerates the LEO or doesn't otherwise potentially harm a department). It has to be attainable via some unbiased source. If police want to use them for their protection, they also have to use them to "air the dirty laundry" as it were.
-
Sounds like a workable idea.
Would there be any penalty for taking off the camera or disabling it?
Yes, His Department policy is termination. He get to write the policy. =D
These are the cameras he's looking at getting:
http://www.wolfcomusa.com/default.html
-
The problem is that the cops know how to delete recordings. <snip>
Fortunately for him, his tablet was synched to some cloud service and he was able to restore the recording.
Well, obviously they don't know how to delete recordings that well. ;)
While I know there's a snowball's chance in hell of the officer(s) in question facing destruction of evidence charges for doing that, I think they should. Oh, it 'wasn't me'? Conspiracy charges.
BTW, here's a study (http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-happens-when-police-officers-wear-body-cameras-1408320244): 60% reduction in use of force by police officers, 88% reduction in complaints. It's not broken down whether to say that officers are behaving themselves better, or people aren't bothering to make false complaints that would be easily disproven by the cameras, or the people themselves are acting better when they know they're on camera, but it's probably a mix of 'all of the above'.
It also makes investigation into a police shooting a lot faster and easier.
These are the reasons I support the cameras.