Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on April 09, 2014, 04:22:03 PM
-
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/lapd-officers-monkey-wrenched-cop-monitoring-gear-in-patrol-cars/
The Los Angeles Police Commission is investigating how half of the recording antennas in the Southeast Division went missing, seemingly as a way to evade new self-monitoring procedures that the Los Angeles Police Department imposed last year.
Further Reading
Boston policemen complain about new plan to watch their movements
Anon officer: “No one likes it. Who wants to be followed all over the place?”
The antennas, which are mounted onto individual patrol cars, receive recorded audio captured from an officer’s belt-worn transmitter. The transmitter is designed to capture an officer’s voice and transmit the recording to the car itself for storage. The voice recorders are part of a video camera system that is mounted in a front-facing camera on the patrol car. Both elements are activated any time the car’s emergency lights and sirens are turned on, but they can also be activated manually.
According to the Los Angeles Times, an LAPD investigation determined that around half of the 80 patrol cars in one South LA division were missing antennas as of last summer, and an additional 10 antennas were unaccounted for.
If they aren't doing anything wrong, they ought not mind being monitored...
-
“No one likes it. Who wants to be followed all over the place?”
Certainly not all the people that you've been following =(
Ha! >:D
-
They used that equipment to fire some Milwaukee cops a few years back who were breaking into a closed down bowling alley to bowl and drink while they were supposed to be out on patrol.
-
When we hear about some officer that does bad, wrong, or illegal things, the defenders usually fall back on the "few bad apples" defense. I'll admit that one officer may have disabled (lets call it vandalized, which is a crime) more than one system. But half of the cars? That's a systemic problem, not an isolated incident.
-
an LAPD investigation determined that around half of the 80 patrol cars in one South LA division were missing antennas as of last summer, and an additional 10 antennas were unaccounted for.
When I was in the Army, "missing" was pretty much the same as "unaccounted for".
So it's ~50 out of 80 that don't have antennas?
-
I find it interesting how sharply rates of use of force drop when the cops are on camera. It's almost like they were using unjustified force before, and stop when they know they'll be held accountable...
-
That is one perspective. There is another. You might find it elusive
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
That is one perspective. There is another. You might find it elusive
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
I assume you're implying that people realize they're being filmed and so are on their best behaviour? Because of course people who are willing to assault a cop and take a beating/shooting for it, would be too timid to do so on camera. ;/
I bet they were the ones who disabled the recorders on these poor cops' cars too huh? You really are beyond parody sometimes. And now, back to my policy of not feeding your troll ass.
-
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-putting-cameras-cops-behave/16202
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
http://abcnews.go.com/News/school-bus-rides-from-hell-do-surveillance-cameras-help/blogEntry?id=17354805
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Do they drive the same car everyday? I know some fleets that monitor. And some drivers learn how to disable the systems. never knew anyone who hooked it back up after.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
And how do they mount? Which district? I think its odd that only one area has a bunch missing. Would expect a more widespread action. What is the range on these things with and without?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Have they ruled out vandalism by others? Just curious.
I also would think they ought to know who was the driver. The question is can they discipline them for it?
-
Have they ruled out vandalism by others? Just curious.
Seems pretty unlikely to me. That would be a pretty specific and consistent vandalism.
Honestly, I get the sentiment from the officers. I'd not be thrilled if everything I did throughout the day in my office were recorded to later possibly be used against me. However, perhaps that is the price they need to pay for the protections they enjoy.
-
I also would think they ought to know who was the driver. The question is can they discipline them for it?
Don't they have to do a "pre-flight" check of the car at the start of the shift ???
We had to do that with school buses.
-
I also would think they ought to know who was the driver. The question is can they discipline them for it?
Yes. Arrest their arse, vandalism, destruction of government property. Will they arrest them? No. Not going to happen.
-
Any idea what the antenna looks like? Size? Apparently missing just cuts range by 1/3. And is their system always on? Typically they aren't
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Apparently missing just cuts range by 1/3.
I doubt the beat cop knows that, though.
And is their system always on? Typically they aren't
The body mics that our county mounties use are tied to the dash cam which only operates (along with a 30 second or so buffer) when they activate their lights or manually tell it to record. Also, the mics can be manually disabled even when the dash cam is going. I've seen that happen when a deputy wanted to cut someone a real break without being recorded doing so.
That said, my guess is that if the cops are attempting to disable the systems on their car by yanking antennae, they probably don't have that level of control over them.
-
IMO, the solution is to go to the on-body cameras, and use them as the time clock; shift starts when your camera comes on, and when it goes off, you're on an unpaid break. Allow 5-10 minutes to report a camera failure, and use the dashcam to monitor their return to the station for a replacement. Too many camera failures in high pressure situations and you get a full crew with a Panaflex following you around. (Film costs deducted from the chief's discretionary budget, of course.)
-
Seems pretty unlikely to me. That would be a pretty specific and consistent vandalism.
Honestly, I get the sentiment from the officers. I'd not be thrilled if everything I did throughout the day in my office were recorded to later possibly be used against me. However, perhaps that is the price they need to pay for the protections they enjoy.
I wouldn't want to be videoed at all times either. BUT, if I was in a job where I knew a good percentage of people were looking for reasons to complain against me, I might be much in favor of having it all on video. As one of the quotes said that I saw on one of the links; this is really about collecting evidence, not playing gotcha with the cops or others. There is a more or less impartial record.
-
I wouldn't want to be videoed at all times either. BUT, if I was in a job where I knew a good percentage of people were looking for reasons to complain against me, I might be much in favor of having it all on video.
Totally agree. Recorded interactions with the public is a benefit to a good cop.
As one of the quotes said that I saw on one of the links; this is really about collecting evidence, not playing gotcha with the cops or others. There is a more or less impartial record.
In general, yes, but I don't get the feeling that this system is purely for collecting evidence on people the cops interact with. If it were, there wouldn't be a good reason (short of bad coppery) for the cops to want to disable it. Moreover, if it were primarily for evidence collection then there isn't really a reason I can think of to spend all that extra money on a dedicated radio-based system in each car to transmit that information in real time to a centralize location. It is in the interests of police to collect good evidence, and a conventional dash-cam or on-body camera handles that pretty well for a lot less.
Thus, it makes me think some combination of the following is true:
1. This particular system is directed at catching bad cops - perhaps for good reason.
2. LAPD's budget is too big
3. Someone high up in LAPD knows (in the biblical sense) someone at a vendor that sells realtime cop car monitoring systems.
-
If they get sovereign immunity, they wave any right to whine about getting recorded every second they spend on the job. Or 24/7 for that matter, if they have the same immunity when off duty.
-
If they get sovereign immunity, they wave any right to whine about getting recorded every second they spend on the job. Or 24/7 for that matter, if they have the same immunity when off duty.
Qualified immunity != sovereign immunity.
-
I find it interesting how sharply rates of use of force drop when the cops are on camera. It's almost like they were using unjustified force before, and stop when they know they'll be held accountable...
Yeah ... what a coincidence.
-
dedicated radio-based system in each car to transmit that information in real time to a centralize location
is that whats happening? i read it differently
"The antennas, which are mounted onto individual patrol cars, receive recorded audio captured from an officer’s belt-worn transmitter. The transmitter is designed to capture an officer’s voice and transmit the recording to the car itself for storage. "
seems its just to take the signal from camera and record it in car
-
I find it interesting how sharply rates of use of force drop when the cops are on camera. It's almost like they were using unjustified force before, and stop when they know they'll be held accountable...
You're probably right, but another possibility might be that the camera makes them overly cautious.
As an example, let's say that as a legally armed citizen you are required to use a video recorder for any potential deadly force encounter. Knowing that your actions will be second-guessed later by people who are not experiencing the physical/psychological components of the situation, would that perhaps make you pause before acting? Of course, cops experience use of force situations more frequently, and may have more training in handling them then the average person, but they aren't necessarily immune to doubts either.
There is, of course, no excuse for them destroying their equipment.
-
seems its just to take the signal from camera and record it in car
My mistake, I misread. Then it is similar to the system they use here and I have no idea why they would want to break it off. If they wanted to beat the system they could turn their mic off or just leave it in the charger in the car.
-
Odd that all areas aren't making same move too.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
You're probably right, but another possibility might be that the camera makes them overly cautious.
Personally, I'd rather have them err on the side of not infringing the rights of citizens in the name of "officer safety." You want safe, get a finance degree, not CJ.
-
i was thinking knowing they are on camera makes the folk with no badge cautious too
-
i was thinking knowing they are on camera makes the folk with no badge cautious too
I call that a win-win. Fewer leos abusing folks and fewer folks trying to win the stupidity jackpot by assaulting leos.
-
Who will watch the watchers?
Local (Dallas) TV station did a report on some folks who're following the LEO around, filming & taking still pic's of interactions with the general public.
LEO don't like it. Chief said that someone's likely to get hurt, 'cause the cops don't know who is pulling up during the interaction - it might be someone involved in the on-going kidnapping.
The forward-facing cameras need to be enhanced, to where they get at least a 180* view. I recently received a dash cam video (via a FIFO request), most of the interaction took place off-camera. The audio was garbled, probably 80% was understandable. Hard to make a decision based on evidence like that.
-
The forward-facing cameras need to be enhanced, to where they get at least a 180* view.
Considering the amount of crap already on top of the cars, I just can't see a StreetView type camera with full 360 view being a real problem, aerodynamically or otherwise.
I recently received a dash cam video (via a FIFO request), most of the interaction took place off-camera. The audio was garbled, probably 80% was understandable. Hard to make a decision based on evidence like that.
Not sure what format they're using, but I can't imagine it would be that hard to take advantage of 2-5 audio channels for separate mics in various locations, including a body mic.
-
You're probably right, but another possibility might be that the camera makes them overly cautious.
As an example, let's say that as a legally armed citizen you are required to use a video recorder for any potential deadly force encounter. Knowing that your actions will be second-guessed later by people who are not experiencing the physical/psychological components of the situation, would that perhaps make you pause before acting? Of course, cops experience use of force situations more frequently, and may have more training in handling them then the average person, but they aren't necessarily immune to doubts either.
There is, of course, no excuse for them destroying their equipment.
Well, they are already standardizing on rear view cameras for backing up. Why not install those 4 or 5 of those around the car and have them looped through a recorder that keeps the last hour or so of video. Authorities then have video of the time preceding a car wreck. It would be external only. The car speed and other data could be added over the top of the video.
People already set up cameras when dealing with cops. How about having that built in standard. As long as I know it is there I can work with it. One of the things I don't like about my truck is I can't access the rear view camera without putting the truck in reverse. With LCD and LED screens getting cheaper, I can see all sorts of things getting added to cars over the next decade or more.
-
i was thinking knowing they are on camera makes the folk with no badge cautious too
With all the crap the average cop has on their kit, how would a civilian know who has a camera?
-
Its usually publicized. O
Its seen as good pr
Sheriffs dept here the cops bought their own dash cams in the beginning. It really ups the conviction rate
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD