Should police have cameras recording their work at all times?
Displaying poll results.24153 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8284 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 2354 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 9 comments
"Accidentally" (Score:5, Insightful)
Prosecution: "Officer O'Malley, why was your camera off from 2:35-2:40am, the precise time of the incident?"
The last poll option is not a valid reason to not deploy the cameras. Every officer will be required to explain every missing second of video and audio. Every missing second is extremely incriminating.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally, we have an answer to that. Not sure if I like the answer, though:
Youtube.
Re:About things "accidentally breaking" (Score:2, Insightful)
But chances are YOU WANT SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT.
For the good of the community you want police officers to make value judgements.
If you leave officers to have to follow the letter of the law, those same terribly vindictive laws are going to lock a lot of otherwise good people away for years.
If now all on film and archived, there's also the possibility of: as evident, officer X let this granny go free for this, we have record of it, selective enforcement, now my client (who is a terrible piece of trash) clearly must be let go as well. We are also pursuing civil charges against the officer as well.
Have you ever candidly talked with police officers? The things they have to deal with, the absolute trash that everyone is pleading for to make go away. If they can just find anything at all...
"accidental" breakage (Score:4, Insightful)
The won't be "accidentally" breaking when the perp is actually being belligerant, which is most of the time there is an incident. If we were to posit that the cop is telling the truth in the Michael Brown case, the weeks of disruption, rioting, looting, vandalism, and arson could have been obviated by the timely release of the video.
Re:Unintended consequences? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing wrong with that. If a politician can get nailed for the same offense that we do, they might write the law a bit more carefully.
Re:"Accidentally" (Score:5, Insightful)
Sarbanes-Oxley (Score:4, Insightful)
We have this requirement of corporations where they must keep records of all electronic communications. Missing communications during a court case is considered to be 100% condemning on the part of the corporation that lost their data. So, I'm not saying this is working 100%, but if we can do this for corporations, can't the police do it for cameras too?
How does Sarbanes-Oxley treat regular malfunctions vs. tampering?
We can at least point to this to start the conversation.
...like dash cams. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dash cams in most/many/some police cars work when the officer engages his lights or sirens, passes a certain speed threshold, etc.
It's my firm belief that the men and women serving in our police force should, for example, be allowed to pee, eat a sandwich, or talk to their partner about how bad their mortgage company is without being recorded -- but at the same time, it's my firm belief that their enforcement should be documented.
Start by expanding the dashcam FOV and expand the triggers for dashcam recording to include a period of time after the opening and closing of the doors.
How to let officers pee without also letting them turn off cameras at every "inconvenient" time presents a challenge...
Re:Almost dropped on side of HWY by my local 5-0 (Score:2, Insightful)
FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON, WITH ZERO PROVOCATION..
...for what appeared to me to be without reason or provocation.
His reason might have sucked, but this idea that he was bored and just wanted to fuck around and pull his gun on some dude in the dark is nuts.
Re:Media (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops are not doing a good job. Estimates range from 400-1000 unjustified deaths a year. To put it into context, since 9/11, there may well have been 4 times as many unjustified deaths by cops in America as unjustified deaths by Al Queda.
That isn't acceptable by any standards.
Or perhaps if you'd like, I can put it another way. There have been three times as many incidents of manslaughter and murder by American cop per capita of population than there have been incidents of manslaughter or murder in Britain in total.
That number is WAY unacceptable.
Cops carrying guns confer no benefit to those in the area (80% of bullets fired by police handguns miss their target, they don't vanish and they do hit passers-by, sound crew, hostages, etc).
Cops carrying guns confer no benefits to law and order, since alternatives from stun guns to pain rays (microwave stimulation of nerve endings, if you prefer) to teargas (which isn't great but is less lethal than a lump of lead) already exist and criminals are less likely to carry when running is a more practical option than a shoot-out. That has always been the British experience, which is why you now get regular shoot-outs where British cops are stupid enough to carry where you'd previously have had maybe one a decade versus an armed response unit.
Cops carrying guns confer no benefits to the cop, since dead weight can result a cop becoming dead, accidental shootings are very likely to produce retaliation, and "utility" belts stop utilizing when they terrify locals, intimidate visitors, but bolster thugs who gain greater mobility and dexterity from not wearing them.
Look, this is all very simple. Too simple for nutters, perhaps, but simple nonetheless.
First, preventing crime by eliminating prime environmental and psychological causes is a good start. If there's no crime, there's nobody to shoot and nobody shooting back.
Second, preventing cops turning bad by preventing them developing a "them vs us" attitude is essential and you don't achieve that by giving them scrutineering powers and not those they are scrutinizing. It has to be a two-way street to prevent that kind of mindset.
But that requires one additional ingredient to work properly:
Third, preventing cops turning bad by preventing them from being have-a-go heros. They should work with the community, be a part of the community, guard it from within. And, like all good guards, they should NOT be on constant alert. They should be constantly engaging on a social level, not a paramilitary one. If a crime happens, let the criminal go somewhere where there ISN'T a huge danger to others. Inanimate objects can look after themselves, people need a bit more effort.
It is better to let a gang "get away" from the scene, with no bullets fired, be tracked safely and then be apprehended INTACT when it is safe to do so. Going in there guns blazing will cause excessive damage, risk the lives of those supposedly protected and served, and for what? Some carcases. No trial, no determination of the chain of events, no proof even that the dead body is the guilty party. It can't exactly answer questions in the dock, can it?
No, disarm the cops, give them high-res cameras (and maybe girls gone wild t-shirts, I dunno), and let them be what cops should be - good citizens. They are NOT the army, they should NEVER be allowed military-grade weapons, they should deal with matters calmly, quietly and sensibly.
If they're not capable of that, they're incapable of good. Of any kind.
Re:Unintended consequences? (Score:2, Insightful)
Then should it even be a law? Get rid of all those laws. I choose liberty.
Re:You don't need to archive video. (Score:4, Insightful)
a) You do need to archive it, and b) it cannot be something that happens if the cop wants it to.
Small device, 720p, two 64 GB cards (in case one breaks, happens to hit it's limit, etc etc.) They go in a rack at the precinct. Start of shift, you draw your camera, clip it on. The moment it leaves it's charging/upload rack, it starts recording. It continues to until it hit's it's rack again at night, whence it starts charging and uploading.
Camera 'breaks?' Radio in, and RTB for a new one. No working camera? Too bad, it's part of your uniform. You are no longer an on-duty cop.
Cop testifies about something where there SHOULD be video, but for some reason, isn't? His testimony is now considered unreliable.
Guess what? You, Mr. Police Man, get extraordinary powers when dealing with civilians. You have powers and authority above and beyond. Therefore, you should be scrutinized.
And yes, this is for your own protection, too. This eliminates any possibility of 'If you don't let me go, I'm going to scream that you grabbed my tits.' This reduces greatly IA's involvement in your life. "He was coming at me with a knife, and ignored my verbal warnings. Right about...here, on the video."
Re:silly poll for latest news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About things "accidentally breaking" (Score:5, Insightful)
Crowd-Source the auditing. All footage to be audited by the public, anything flagged goes to IA.
No -- that's very bad for protecting victims and witnesses. The main argument agaist the cameras is innocent victims and witnesses end up being recorded.
Here (PDF) http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/sto... [plymouth.gov.uk] is a report from using the cameras in the UK, way back in 2007. Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-2... [bbc.co.uk] says video is deleted after 30 days, unless it's part of an investigation.
Re:"Accidentally" (Score:5, Insightful)
Most in the Slashdot crowd would scoff at using the "nothing to hide" argument [slashdot.org] as it applies to more widespread surveillance of ordinary citizens. At the same time, they would happily use it as a justification for more widespread "surveillance" (e.g., transparency and monitoring) of police, intelligence services, and government in general.
I do not think this is an example of doublethink, or a double standard. It's not a double standard if the situations it's being applied to are, in fact, different. There is a very big difference between the private matters of private citizens and the actions of government employees in the conduct of their public roles. For that reason, always-on police cameras seem quite reasonable, so long as they can be switched off or set aside as soon as the officer goes off duty and resumes being a private citizen.
Many of the arguments raised in debunking the "nothing to hide" argument are worth considering, and should guide the proper implementation of police cameras and other "watching the watchers" efforts. I don't, however, think the arguments are forceful enough for us to not implement police cameras, though.
Re:Almost dropped on side of HWY by my local 5-0 (Score:4, Insightful)
So, what you're saying is, when a child goes missing, that's a perfectly reasonable rationale for cops to go all Rambo on people, sticking guns in their faces and restraining them for no reason other than being in the general vicinity of where something might have happened some time ago?
WTF is wrong with you?
Re:About things "accidentally breaking" (Score:4, Insightful)
there is no expectation of privacy for a public servant in the performance of his duty, period. Therefore, the "nothing to hide" argument is moot.
Public oversight begins and ends with a truthful account of a public servant's actions. Such accounting can ONLY be achieved technologically with a camera, because we KNOW FOR A FACT that public servants LIE. If they are confronted with the truth, then their only defence to breaking the Law by which they expect to hold us to, is smashed by the facts as presented on that which *they* so vehemently (and perhaps ironically) oppose.
Re:Unintended consequences? (Score:4, Insightful)
If it is routinely inappropriate to enforce the law, they ought to change the law, not make exceptions for whoever they like.
I like the way you think, penguinoid! If the inappropriate law was equally applied, the law would likely be changed or discarded.
As an aside to this, I think we need to put sunset clauses on existing laws anyway. Every ten years or so, the law must be re-approved in order to stay on the books. Anything uncontroversial would just be passed easily. The other stuff would be rejected and we would move on. I think cameras on cops would hasten the need for cleaning the books of archaic laws that are not needed or equally enforceable.
Re:"Accidentally" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Accidentally" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:...like dash cams. (Score:4, Insightful)
Skeptical; citation needed. This goes against millions of cases of city payouts for rights violations. Google "payment for false arrest": 4.95 million results.
Here's just one that's on-topic from earlier this month: "Brooklyn man wins $125,000 settlement after claiming he was arrested for recording stop-and-frisk"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/125g-deal-vid-stop-frisk-article-1.1906965 [nydailynews.com]