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."
Our local department has this (Score:5, Interesting)
Started about a year ago. They are turned on when the shift starts and can't be turned off until the shift has ended.
Mounted on a hat above the right ear and they have sound.
Indiana, by the way.
Uh (Score:5, Interesting)
In the two recent Canadian Police Brutality events, the police DID have cameras on their uniforms.
They turned them off until after the attack was over.
Re:ok (Score:5, Interesting)
my point was perhaps too subtle... the purpose was to acknowledge the ubiquity of mobile video recording devices and the utility they provide while pointing out the apparent change from the traditional "don't film me while I'm working" attitude of most modern police forces. As long as the camera is actively recording the actions of the police, this would be a step forward in ensuring police are better controlled to work within the law. But it only works if they are ALL required to be recorded while on duty. No more double standards with them being allowed to record the public but the public not being allowed to record them.
assaults on officers do drop, not why you think... (Score:5, Interesting)
the use of force by officers and assaults on officers drops by as much as 60%
Uh huh, and do you know why that is? That's because if you annoy a cop, you get charged with "assault on a police officer" even if you didn't touch them. With a video recorder serving as a witness, the cops know they can't engage in what is commonly called "testilying."
In my city, the charges cops love to slap anyone they don't like with include AOAPO and "disturbing the peace" - the latter of which basically consists of "a crowd gathered because of you."
I knew someone - a sub-5-foot-tall, sub-100-lb girl - whose birthday party was ended by cops because it was too loud. Fair enough. She provides her information to one cop, and then a second cop comes in and asks her for her personal information again a few minutes later. She asks him why - she just gave it to the other cop. He refuses to say why, and she asks him again why he can't get the information from the other cop.
Next thing she remembers, her head is slammed on the countertop and she's in cuffs. Spent the night in jail, and the next day in court answering charges including disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and assault on a police officer.
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."
Wasted thousands of dollars in legal fees, because some dickhead cop broke the law and filed false charges, lied in his report, and lied in court.
Re:Loaded camera (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you mean by "go nowhere"? I was charged with assaulting a police officer in addition to pretty much every other contempt of cop charge and received a very generous plea bargain offer from the prosecutor with no jail time and only 6 months probation. My attorney argued for 3 months and the judge accepted it. I could only assume the generous offer was due to the fact that the prosecutor either didn't believe the cop's bullshit story or felt there wasn't enough evidence to convict me. There were at least 6 or 7 police witnesses who presumably would have backed up the guy's lies if it had gone to trial. So it does seem strange. It may be that even the prosecutors have stopped believing the cops.
Ya we really need a law like this (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically a law saying that if a police officer is supposed to have a camera running on something, and that footage is unavailable for whatever reason, then their testimony is excluded. So if they are giving testimony about a time when they don't have a camera and aren't supposed to, like they are off duty, then their testimony is treated like the testimony of any other person. However if they were supposed to have a camera at the time and the footage is gone, well then they can't offer any testimony as to what happened during that time.
It would give strong incentive to keep them on and running, and make sure the footage is kept. Otherwise, cases would get lost due to lack of evidence.
Re:As a victim of police lies and a destroyed life (Score:2, Interesting)
They actually stopped giving pardons and replaced it with some other Harper program that still allows people to see that you have been convicted of something. The old process took 6 months to a year to complete btw, and cost a few hundred. The new one cost over $700. This current government would rather have people unable to rejoin society after a criminal conviction as they have strong ties to US jail profiteers and are planning to privatize Canadian prisons as well. (I AM Canadian and in government)
Re:But (Score:3, Interesting)
Weird because when french canadians tried to have their own country, the anglos were in the street claiming their love and begging for them to stay a part of Canada. Remember the 1995 referendum ? Yes the one where the liberals cheated... There is nothing we would love more than have our own country. Help us get there at the next referendum and then we can start to love each other again.
Btw, I'm not the anonymous coward and I do not share his views about beating up people...
Cynical for a Reason (Score:5, Interesting)
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%.
This sort of tells us what we already knew. That basically most of the force police use already is applied illegally applied or over-applied [knowyourmeme.com]. The camera is forcing police to act more ethically, which reduces their use of force, but also hints that they widely act unethically at present. It isn't unique to Canada. [gawker.com]
Re:Uh (Score:4, Interesting)
Can you provide more details on this statement? What events are you referring to? What proofs they turn off their cameras do you have?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/24/edmonton-police-brutality-video_n_3332668.html [huffingtonpost.ca]
You can see them turn the camera back on in the video when they discover they are being filmed.
You can also watch as they sit on top of a prone man -- who was only guilty of littering (and presumably only if he left the scene after missing the garbage can) -- while restraining him on the ground, punching him repeatedly in the face.
While doing so, with the video off but audio recording enabled, the police officer repeatedly shouts to stop resisting and to turn over -- which the victim obviously cannot do because he's, you know, being restrained against the ground.
However, an audit of the audio would collaborate a "I was trying to get him to stop fighting me and lay down and he wouldn't" defense.
Personally, I feel the officers should not be able to turn off their cameras on their own, instead requiring dispatch to send a signal to do so. I do not believe police officers should have an expectation of privacy while on duty, especially given the special authority we allot them as officers of the peace.
There is a second, very similar, instance of this happening in Canada recently, which I believe is the reason this bill was proposed. Apparently the Edmonton police have a reputation not dissimilar to our own LAPD for corruption.
Re:Our local department has this (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but you've got that wrong. The punishment doesn't need to be severe, but needs to be relatively certain. A minor punishment that you are fairly certain will be applied is much more effective than a severe punishment that is quite uncertain. And heavy punishments are typically applied much more sparingly.
Assaults on officers (Score:5, Interesting)
As a counterpoint, I've seen quite a few cases where somebody ends up being charged with 'assaulting an officer' more or less for arguing with him.
I've seen videos of it. Sure, the person is normally being a douche while running his mouth a mile a minute and is sometimes failing to take action to officer directions that require active movement like 'Turn around', 'get on your knees', etc... But does failing to produce ID count as assaulting a police officer? Threatening a lawsuit? Complaining that the stop is illegal?
These charges normally end up dropped, but my point would be that if officers think they can get away with charges like this when the interaction is being caught on their car's camera, what are they doing when they don't think they're being video taped?
Maybe, knowing that they're being recorded, the officers are actually practicing their de-escalation techniques and they're working.
Re:ok (Score:5, Interesting)
"But it only works if they are ALL required to be recorded while on duty. No more double standards with them being allowed to record the public but the public not being allowed to record them."
Not just that, but let's make sure there is no more coincidental "Oops... I didn't have my camera on" when things don't go their way.
I was the victim of that myself once. Video camera was in prominent view, and recording light was on, but when it was time to go to court and describe what the police did, the recording had "mysteriously disappeared". Yeah right.
Re:Not 'Good/Bad' Cop, 'Good/Bad' Department (Score:5, Interesting)
Any cop who covers for bad cops is a bad cop. Done and done.
Did you read my post beyond the first sentence? Bad cops cover for bad cops, making for whole bad departments. Good cops don't, quickly weeding out bad cops, and ensuring 'middling' cops are corrected whenever they stray even a little, keeping them on the straight and narrow.
You have a bad department it's a royal pain to clean up. You have to fire huge gobs of corrupt/bad officers, retrain the ones you can salvage, etc...
The bad department theory helps explain why some departments have so many more problems than others, why so many cops don't see problems - because there aren't problems in their view. The bad cops all run together, and often know 'which' cops they can and cannot act up around.