Montreal Union Wants a Camera On Every Policeman's Uniform 320
An anonymous reader writes "The Montreal Policemen's Brotherhood is proposing that officers be equipped with uniform-mounted cameras that can be used to record various interactions. The union says in other jurisdictions where police officers are equipped with point-of-view cameras, the use of force by officers and assaults on officers drops by as much as 60%. One system is currently being tested in Edmonton, Alberta."
Loaded camera (Score:4, Insightful)
That camera must be one powerful weapon if it has caused such a great reduction in "assaults on officers." I don't suppose it could be that they were making shit up, and now find it more difficult to do so with video evidence? Could this be extrapolated to suggest that a majority of "resisting arrest" charges are entirely bogus?
great for all civil servants (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Loaded camera (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:great for all civil servants (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as there are penalties for 'losing' key footage. Whether by the officer or higher in the chain of command. Otherwise it becomes a selective evidence tool that is easily biased.
This is a problem which can easily be dealt with in the courts. Footage missing? Cop must be lying.
Re:Loaded camera (Score:3, Insightful)
Just stating the first logical conclusion. Given that it's a certainty the cop knows bout his uniform camera, and an uncertainty that any potential assaulter knows about it, there is a much higher probability that the reduction in assaults is attributable directly to the officer being aware of the camera.
But, hey... ad hominems all around, amirite? Go fuck yourself.
Re:But (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it should be a criminal offence for an officer to turn off their camera during duty hours.
Re:assaults on officers do drop, not why you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Spent the night in jail, and the next day in court answering charges including disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and assault on a police officer.
Something very similar happened to me. The cop even charged me with assault on a police officer with a deadly weapon. A much more serious charge. A felony which could have resulted in many years in prison. Because beating me nearly to death just wasn't sufficient apparently. That deadly weapon charge mysteriously vanished when I appeared in court.
The judge looks at her, then looks at the cop, who's a burly nearly-6-foot-tall dude, then looks at the charges and says "Seriously? SHE resisted arrest and assaulted YOU? You've got to be kidding me. Dismissed."
Unfortunately, being male, I didn't get any such leniency from the judge and now I have "assault and battery on a police officer" on my record. In addition to every other contempt of cop charge the asshole could think of. I wasn't found guilty. I pleaded something similar to "no contest" because the plea bargain offer had no jail time. Just probation and a small fine. I paid thousands in legal fees and have lingering memory problems as a result of the beating I received.
Since my contact with the police was due to a roadblock, I plan to either move to one of the few states where such things are illegal or leave the country entirely for a place where the police are not so violent and dangerous.
If only the cop who beat me had been forced to wear a camera which was required to be on for any of the common contempt of cop charges to be allowed I would have been saved at least from the false charges. I would probably still have been severely injured or even killed but that would have been the end of it.
Re:Loaded camera (Score:5, Insightful)
He has to maintain a working relationship with the police.
Re:ok (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ok (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Loaded camera (Score:4, Insightful)
If the prosecutor didn't believe the story, then why offer a plea at all? The right thing to do is to drop the charges completely.
Why would you think that "right" has anything to do with it?
Re:ok (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for the video cameras on the police, provide the camera is "sealed" from tampering and the police are compelled to produce the video evidence else the prosecution fails and the courts charges the police for contempt.
Re:Why is this marked as insightful? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the history of dash cams. They always 'fail' or tapes are lost when the footage is bad for the cops.
Until the track record changes it is safe to assume the video will never show the cops applying some 'stick time'. Cops will simply have their hats fall off/shirt pocket flap fall over the camera etc.
Re:Loaded camera (Score:4, Insightful)
Read your own story. Who attacked who first?
Re:Cynical for a Reason (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you notice the "and assaults on officers" part of the statement?
It turns out that most police officers in most places are actually decent people just trying to do a job under sometimes difficult conditions. While there are too many bad apples in the police and any abuse of powers/equipment they are allowed that the rest of us aren't is to be condemned and punished, there are also bad applies among the general public and abuse of the police officers by anyone else is also to be condemned and punished.
Re:Why is this marked as insightful? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's insightful when you review the number of alleged beatings, forced searches, racial profiling harassment, and other incidents in which the police cruiser records are somehow "unavailable" and the video evidence from bystanders with cell phones directly contradicts police testimony.
It's even more interesting when you review the tendency of police with cruiser videos to script their movements so that fraudulent claims about the motorist behavior is not documented. Hop over to Youtube, there is a *lot* of what seems very real citizen video in direct conflict with police accounts of their own behavior, as a matter of court record.
Re:But (Score:0, Insightful)
Your federal taxes are the same as anywhere else in the country, and it's not a net gain for ROC - all the money goes into the same pot and then gets handed out to pay for all the federal programs that every province enjoys. The only thing wrong with the equalization payments program is how much of a stink everyone makes about it.
Re:Cynical for a Reason (Score:4, Insightful)
The major difference here is police officers wear a uniform, and as such their behavior is perceived to representative of everyone wearing that same uniform.
The same way you trust a person in a nurses uniform to tend to your wounds, or injuries, you should be able to trust a person in a police officers uniform to uphold the law. Unfortunately, when the 'decent' police turn a blind eye to the bad apples activities, the uniform as a whole suffers for it, and public trust goes down.
It isn't what you think it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, often a police officer will aggress against a person for whatever reason and then later claim that the person they aggressed against was the agressor. It basically allows an officer to arrest or even beat anyone up for anything and is a much more common tactic than you think. When the citizen gets to court, do you think a judge or jury will believe the police officer or the citizen? [nytimes.com]
We hear a lot about the minority of cases where a bystander taped the scene and the police did something wrong, but you don't hear about the majority where nobody was there to video tape it.
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
...the anglos were in the street claiming their love and begging for them to stay a part of Canada...
... the anglos were in the street calling bullshit for segmenting Canada in half and having a secondary country extort them for transporting goods east/west.
Re:But (Score:3, Insightful)
We were there first anyway...
No, you were not. [wikipedia.org]