U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras 643
Several readers sent word that U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has begun speaking in favor of mandatory cameras for police across the country. "Everywhere I go people now have cameras. And police officers are now at a disadvantage, because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of the encounter. And it gives the impression that the police officer has overreacted when they haven't." This follows the recent controversy ove the shooting death of Michael Brown in a police incident, as well as a White House petition on the subject that rocketed to 100,000 signatures.
McCaskill continued, "I would like to see us say, 'If you want federal funding in your community, you've got to have body cams on your officers. And I think that would go a long way towards solving some of these problems, and it would be a great legacy over this tragedy that's occurred in Ferguson, regardless of what the facts say at the end as to whether or not anyone is criminally culpable."
McCaskill continued, "I would like to see us say, 'If you want federal funding in your community, you've got to have body cams on your officers. And I think that would go a long way towards solving some of these problems, and it would be a great legacy over this tragedy that's occurred in Ferguson, regardless of what the facts say at the end as to whether or not anyone is criminally culpable."
I like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, somebody will think this a bad idea...
Federal vs. local decision (Re:I like...) (Score:5, Insightful)
Though I don't think, this particular one is a bad idea, I am worried about the yet another illustration of how the Federal government's control reaches into the crooks and nannies it was never supposed to reach [wikipedia.org]:
By ratcheting up the Federal taxes, the Federal government has come into position to dictate the terms to local governments, who can neither print money nor raise their taxes to finance themselves without bankrupting local economies. But don't you worry — it is not dictatorship, you can always refuse the federal monies, can you not?
Re:Federal vs. local decision (Re:I like...) (Score:5, Insightful)
The federal government has acted as a check on the tyranny of state governments -- who traditionally disenfranchised minorities through institutions like slavery [wikipedia.org], Jim Crow Laws [wikipedia.org], separate inferior education [wikipedia.org], and police brutality -- which is precisely the case here.
Yet again, we trot out the state rights libertarians adrift of any irony that they in fact they thought black folk were property [wikipedia.org] -- and owned them. I'm not saying Madison and Jefferson weren't brilliant -- but you shouldn't ask them about oppression for the same reason we don't ask Michael Vick about animal rights.
Re:Federal vs. local decision (Re:I like...) (Score:5, Insightful)
The federal government has acted as a check on the tyranny of state governments
Utter red herring.
The tyrannies to which you refer were fought by amending the federal constitution and enacting appropriate federal laws to curb the abuses. That's a Good Thing, both the process and the outcome. But it has nothing to do with mi's point. The things the federal government manipulates through funding are things that it has no authority to control, and for which there is no national political will sufficient to give the government that control. Hence this back door method.
If cop cameras are sufficiently important that the federal government should mandate them, then Congress should pass a law mandating them. If the courts knock the law down as unconstitutional (as they would), then we should amend the constitution to give the federal government the authority required. This sneaky backdoor manipulation of state policy via federal funding, though... it's a tool that has no essential limits and no constitutional controls. It's a bad idea, and we should stop it.
Re:Federal vs. local decision (Re:I like...) (Score:4, Insightful)
You're cherry-picking information to attack libertarians, and your argument is flawed. Perhaps you forgot about the Japanese during WWII [wikipedia.org], or maybe the fact that state nullification of Federal laws was first used to protect people being pursued under the Fugitive Slave Act. [wikipedia.org]
Or maybe the racist federal war on drugs [drugpolicy.org]: "Since the 1980s, federal penalties for crack were 100 times harsher than those for powder cocaine, with African Americans disproportionately sentenced to much lengthier terms.".
Re: (Score:3)
Yep.
I think it was Montana that once tried to refuse the federal money over the speed limit (not many here have driven a Montana highway at 55).
I don't think they can even refuse the money..
Ticket: Improper use of finite resources ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it was Montana that once tried to refuse the federal money over the speed limit (not many here have driven a Montana highway at 55).
Arizona tried to ignore 55 and not enforce it in certain areas where they thought higher speeds were appropriate and safe. The feds got annoyed and tried to cut highway funding for Arizona. So Arizona started enforcing the 55 mph speed limit. A friend got pulled over and received a ticket, not for speeding -- a moving violation that would put points on his drivers license and raise his insurance rate, but for "improper use of finite resources" -- an infractions that did not show up on one's driving record. In other words he received a ticket for "wasting gas" not speeding.
Re:Federal vs. local decision (Re:I like...) (Score:5, Informative)
Look into why the drinking age was raised to 21 nation wide: Failure to comply cut highway funding. It was blackmail.
So, stick the shitty memes elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
No citations — no argument.
You need citations for Congressional use of the "power of the purse"? Really? Are you some sort of tabula rasa of American history? How basic do we need to get here? Do you understand what the Constitution is? Three branches?
If it is so solid and popular, why not leave it to the communities themselves to equip their police departments as they please?
Because communities are often not as in charge of their police departments as they should be or think they are, because some mo
Re:I like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I like... (Score:5, Insightful)
A body camera is a tiny, tiny fraction of the salary of a cop, and will probably make up its cost very quickly in the bullshit that it cuts out.
Re:I like... (Score:4, Insightful)
The camera itself might be a tiny, tiny fraction of the salary of a cop, but it would still require a massive database and supporting infrastructure to run/maintain the entire implementation. Nor would it change the fact that people would still bring (founded and unfounded) lawsuits against the police.
What if the police got to the scene of a crime after the victim (a black man) managed to turn the tables on the attacker (a white woman) and the only thing the camera saw was the victim (a black man) attacking the attacker (a white woman) in a panicked frenzy? Camera and the police says the victim (a black man) is the attacker, therefore the victim (a black man) gets arrested. Investigation? Why conduct one when the police (partly) caught a black man beating a white woman on camera?
And yes, I am picking an extreme example, but thats exactly how we got here in the first place. White cop shoots black kid. White cop goes free, black kid is (supposedly) framed as a thief. Oh, but we'll have to wait MONTHS for the FEDERAL investigation to be completed because the LOCAL POLICE fucked up so badly there was RIOTING in the streets for over a week. But body cameras will solve all that, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I like... (Score:5, Insightful)
The shooting in Ferguson was used as an excuse to riot.
Look at the story, every 'witness' says he was shot in the back running away ... until the autopsy shows that NONE of the wounds were in his back. From the start every witness account was bullshit.
No. "Every" witness didn't say that. Lawyers who regularly investigate situations like this say that when you have a lot of witnesses, you get different accounts. When every witness gives the same story, they assume that the witnesses got together and made up a story together -- which cops often do.
Ferguson was a town in which most of the population was black, the cops were white, the district attorney was white, and most of the politicians were white. One of the main sources of income for the town was stopping black motorists and giving them traffic tickets.
There were many incidents of brutality by white cops against black people, and this was only the last straw. Most of the demonstrators were peaceful.
And oh yeah. The residents made a memorial for Michael Brown, his mother laid flowers on the spot that he was killed -- and one of the cops brought a police dog to urinate on it.
http://www.motherjones.com/pol... [motherjones.com]
Michael Brown's Mom Laid Flowers Where He Was Shot—and Police Crushed Them
As darkness fell on Canfield Drive on August 9, a makeshift memorial sprang up in the middle of the street where Michael Brown's body had been sprawled in plain view for more than four hours. Flowers and candles were scattered over the bloodstains on the pavement. Someone had affixed a stuffed animal to a streetlight pole a few yards away. Neighborhood residents and others were gathering, many of them upset and angry.
Soon, police vehicles reappeared, including from the St. Louis County Police Department, which had taken control of the investigation. Several officers emerged with dogs. What happened next, according to several sources, was emblematic of what has inflamed the city of Ferguson, Missouri, ever since the unarmed 18-year-old was gunned down: An officer on the street let the dog he was controlling urinate on the memorial site.
Suppose some cop brought his police dog to piss on your mother's grave. Would you get mad?
The reason they have race riots, all over this country, is that people go through the whole process of polite complaints and peaceful demonstrations, and get nowhere. They're routinely getting killed and the cops routinely get away with it. And then the cops stop them in the street and humiliate them, like they did here when they knew they were the center of attention with cameras around. What do you suppose they're doing when there aren't any reporters around?
They riot because they found out that riots are the only thing that works. When they burn down the town, the white establishment finally pays attention.
I doubt that you would pay attention otherwise.
Re:I like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because it won't solve 100% of the problems doesn't mean it shouldn't be applied as one of multiple solutions.
As for your "recorded half-way through" comment, it would be clear that the video didn't start at the beginning and that the cops arrived late at the scene. If a jury can't understand that, you're fucked anyway.
Re:I like... (Score:5, Insightful)
What if the police got to the scene of a crime after the victim (a black man) managed to turn the tables on the attacker (a white woman) and the only thing the camera saw was the victim (a black man) attacking the attacker (a white woman) in a panicked frenzy? Camera and the police says the victim (a black man) is the attacker, therefore the victim (a black man) gets arrested. Investigation? Why conduct one when the police (partly) caught a black man beating a white woman on camera?
How is this any different from the current situation? Currently, said officer will simply testify in court, "I arrived at the scene and the only thing I saw was a black man attacking a white woman in a panicked frenzy."
At least, with the camera solution, we can be 100% sure that the officer isn't telling a flat-out lie when they say something like that in court.
Re:I like... (Score:4, Insightful)
The feds should mandate that all victims must wear cams too!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nor would it change the fact that people would still bring (founded and unfounded) lawsuits against the police.
This is flat out wrong. All the evidence to date shows that cop-cams result in a dramatic reduction in complaints, for two reasons:
1. Since there is a recording, there are far fewer false allegations
2. Since they are being recorded, the cops behave better, so there are fewer incidents that result in valid allegations.
Here is a typical result [informatio...ration.com]:
THE Rialto study began in February 2012 and will run until this July. The results from the first 12 months are striking. Even with only half of the 54 uniformed patrol officers wearing cameras at any given time, the department over all had an 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against officers, compared with the 12 months before the study, to 3 from 24.
But body cameras will solve all that, right?
In the case of Michael Brown, YES, a camera likely would have prevented the riots. The riots didn't occur because a white cop killed a black kid, but because there was a perception that it was unjustified and the cop "got away with it". If there was a camera, there would be much less dispute about what happened. The camera would either show that the shooting was justified, or it would show that it was not and the cop would be charged with murder. In either case, I don't think there would be a riot.
Re:I like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I like... (Score:5, Insightful)
The riots were nothing more than a means to an end (ie, a bunch of thugs getting free stuff).
There were lots of peaceful protesters and far fewer rioters. The police were distracted, and rioters used the protests as cover. If there had been no protests, there would have been no riot. If there was a clear record of what happened, there would have been no protest. For instance, this shooting [youtube.com] looks unjustified to me, and the police lied about what happened, saying the perp came toward them with a raised knife, and they only fired when he was 2-3 feet away. None of that was true. But there was no protest or riot.
Re:I like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be ridiculous
We already bear massive costs of litigation and document storage.
This saves money two ways, Cops know they are being watched, and criminals can't make bogus claims.
The cost for several years of operation would be offset by the absence of ONE riot or bogus lawsuit.
The whole thing can be automated.
You come in from your shift, put your cam in bin, it gets copied to bulk storage.
Key in your badge number, (maybe RFID) and machine dispenses an empty camera every morning.
(Hint: storage is dirt cheap the backup/storage/indexing etc deletion can be entirely automated. )
If all you did was patrol and never had a single arrest or confrontation it gets purged in 90 days.
Every day, there better be video on the camera, or Internal Affairs is going to want to know why.
By the way: for every ridiculous example you cite there are 33,000 arrests every day [fbi.gov] that are not convoluted contrived cases. And even in the situation you describe the police video would not be enough to convict anyone. Saying you should not have evidence because you can contrive a situation where it might not be the whole store is tantamount to shutting down all scientific research world wide. You, sir, are an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
The camera itself might be a tiny, tiny fraction of the salary of a cop, but it would still require a massive database and supporting infrastructure to run/maintain the entire implementation. Nor would it change the fact that people would still bring (founded and unfounded) lawsuits against the police.
What if the police got to the scene of a crime after the victim (a black man) managed to turn the tables on the attacker (a white woman) and the only thing the camera saw was the victim (a black man) attacking the attacker (a white woman) in a panicked frenzy? Camera and the police says the victim (a black man) is the attacker, therefore the victim (a black man) gets arrested. Investigation? Why conduct one when the police (partly) caught a black man beating a white woman on camera?
Are you arguing that no data is better than some data? We have that today and look what it's getting us. Even if use of cameras doesn'r solve all problems, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks, IMO. Even in your scenario what would happen without a camera is the cops would testify that they saw it happening and the Black victim would be in the same situation. At least with cameras you remove any subjectivity or outright bias on the cops' part.
Re:I like... (Score:4, Interesting)
Being able to prove that he was or was not lying would stop the riots.
Probably not, because when people riot they aren't looking for or likely to believe evidence.
Cops would have to release the entire video to the media, and the lawyers wouldn't let that happen.
The lawyers would still fuck this up.
Re: (Score:3)
It will save a hell of a lot of the settlements they have as a result of illegal police action as it will hold police accountable, too.
That is as long as they can't disable or prevent the recording.
So far, it seems every version of a camera tool lets an officer later review and potentially delete the information, which can lead back to the same coverup/problems.
Re:I like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone likes accountability when they have control over it. The cops would have control over the tapes, right? So they get to choose which parts to show and which parts to "inconveniently lose."
One small problem with that theory... if they "inconveniently lose" a critical bit of video evidence at trial, the defense would savage them for it, and the jury is likely to let that fact color their decision in a way that is not advantageous to the prosecution.
All said, since most prosecutions end up plea-bargains this may be moot, but for those that go to trial...?
Re: (Score:3)
All said, since most prosecutions end up plea-bargains this may be moot, but for those that go to trial...?
You make it sound like plea bargains and trials are independent events.
Plea bargains are based on what each party believes is the most likely outcome of a trial.
An attorney could easily argue for a different plea if the tape was damaged or missing because
both sides know that this will change the odds in a jury trial. A police officer that "lost" his
video would be much more likely to want to strike a plea bargain as it puts him at a great
disadvantage if it comes down to a trial. And as the original article
Re: (Score:3)
Case in point... Nixon's tapes. He recorded everything... except a 21 minute gap that "accidentally" got deleted. Nobody believed him. Cops who "lose" parts of recordings will be outed quickly.
Re:I like... (Score:5, Interesting)
it will put the case back into a he said/she said context, against the word of a cop... pretty much what we have now
No. It is not at all what we have now. Without a camera, it is my word against the cop. With a camera, it is my word against a cop that is claiming he "lost" critical exculpatory evidence. That is a huge difference, because in the second case the cop will have far less credibility. I have served on juries several times, although only once where the credibility of the cop was an issue. The jurors did NOT just assume he was telling the truth. Instead, we discussed his possible motivations for lying and distorting the evidence. In the end, we chose to believe him, because we didn't see any reason for him to lie, and his testimony was corroborated by other evidence. Juries tend to be made up of minorities, and economically disadvantaged people, that don't have the motivation or ability to weasel out of it. These are the people least likely to believe cops. If the cop says the camera malfunctioned, the defendant is going to walk.
Re:I like... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.thewire.com/nationa... [thewire.com]
If you're to lazy to read that, here's the condensed version: Most available "Body Cams" for cops use a system where the cop turns the camera on when responding to a call/situation via a double click on a single button on the device. (exactly when the cop is required to turn on the device is decided by department regulations) They can stop recording via the same input. The devices have no controls to erase data, and it is stored until the unit returns to base, at which time it uploads to a secure server run by the manufacturer of the device, which is essentially a digital evidence vault. In the vault, it can only be accessed by verified administrators, usually police chiefs. Now, you may say "well the cop can just turn off the recorder if they want to do something bad." Sure, and at that point, they would be violating department regulations, and subject the case to a lot MORE scrutiny. The online system logs who and when anyone accesses the video in the vault, and wether or not it is copied out of the vault. The point is, the infrastructure is already in place, with hardware available through at least 3 different companies, with extremely well thought out safeguards against the exact sort of asshattery everyone here is claiming will go on if cops are required to use body cams.
No mater what, going from a "this story versus that story" to "two stories, and some video" is an great step towards fair treatment and accurately administered justice.
Re:I like... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't know very many republicans, I suspect. I'm one, and I'm all for this.
What I am opposed to, for the moment, would be:
- Federal compulsory regulation requiring this. Local governments (and state governments as well) have the responsibility and so can make the decisions themselves. Claims that federal civil rights law would compel this are specious. Federal intrusion here leads only to more federal control, and I'm still enough of a Conservative to oppose this.
- Federal funding, which would be the vehicle for regulation. Federal funding is the hammer to drive control. Just say no. Those dollars came from somewhere, you know.
Police departments and communities that have problems with their police already know this, and should be acting. Citizens need to elect officials that ensure that problems are solved.
Re:I like... (Score:4, Insightful)
They can sell the M16's and assault vehicles they dont need to fund the cameras.
Re:I like... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Republican, I 100% agree with the idea and want it to happen.
I also want codified in that same law that all citizens are able to video officers for any reason at any time if they can do so from pubic property or private property they are allowed to do so, and are not physically hampering what is going on.
Any attempt to keep the public from recording or interfering with that recording is de facto proof of violating the civil rights of the photographer and the person that the officers are engaging.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, electors from both parties often do things no one wants.
Re:I like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it: Where is the money going to come for all these cameras?
Federal/state/local governments aren't exactly flush with cash right now so either taxes will need to be increased to purchase said cameras or something will have to be cut (and that opens up a whole other can of worms.)
Or the departments could just take the funding they put aside for a couple surplus MRAPs and buy these cameras instead. These cameras have the added effect of actually improving officer/civilian safety (less chance of violence on both sides if they know a camera is recording) with the only downside being the cops don't have bad-ass trucks they can ride around in while pretending they're Marines riding through downtown Fallujah.
Re:I like... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you get rid of the TSA, there would be tons of money available for such an endeavor.
Re:I like... (Score:5, Informative)
Where is the money going to come for all these cameras?
The cost of the cameras is insignificant compared to the cost of the lawsuits, and riots, that occur in their absence. They also cut down on paperwork, because the video itself is a record of the interaction, so the cop can spend less time writing reports and more time policing. They also save lots of money by reducing arrests, since cameras have a calming influence on both cops and the perps. People behave better when they know they are being filmed.
Federal/state/local governments aren't exactly flush with cash right now ...
Yet they can afford armored vehicles and military weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
Where is the money going to come for all these cameras?
Sell a fucking tank that the federal gov't gave you, for free.
People like you... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I guess that since a tiny slice of the cops MIGHT disable their cameras, we shouldn't do it at all. We probably shouldn't do anything at all, ever. We should probably just make murder legal and stop prosecuting it, since some people still murder...
I do not understand how people with this outlook can get anything done in life.
Cameras are good. They keep everyone, cops and public, polite. If the camera doesn't work, that comes out in the courtroom. That's what the courtroom is for.
Re:People like you... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, so here are some counter arguments to cop cameras:
1) Officer discretion is gone. Jay walking? Have a tiny amount of pot? Prosecute everything since it's on camera and cop might conceivably get into trouble if he lets it go.
2) Potential for privacy invasion. The cameras don't just record the cops actions, they record everything in their line of sight. 800,000 cops in the US = 800,000 cameras on the street and inside people's houses with data stored on government servers.
3) Slippery slope. If you can put camera on cops, why not put them on other government employees? How about post office workers - mail theft is a serious crime. How about private sector employees.
4) More criminals let out on a technicality. This footage is a gift to the Saul Goodman type lawyers who can now pore over every single thing an officer does or says.
5) Cops are people too. How would you like wearing a camera on your job? Would you behave differently? Idk, I think this has subtle implications on good officer retention and also performance as they avoid every even smallest risk in everything they do.
This is more or less off the top of my head. There are probably many more. I'm not even saying we shouldn't do it, but it's ridiculous to say this is obviously a good idea, no discussion necessary.
so adjust the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone complains about an interaction with an officer where the officer's camera has no record of the interaction, the officer is assumed to be guilty.
That should give officers incentive to ensure their cameras are in working order.
Re: (Score:3)
Too fucking bad police.
If you want us to give up our rights so you can protect the greater society at large... you will do what we fucking want you to do.
Or are the wrong person for the job, go do something else.
Disabling the camera would be Spoliation of Evidence, and is a crime in most places.
Will the cameras work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or will we one day hear, that, unfortunately, the cameras worn by the officers involved had "malfunctioned" at the most inopportune moment?
(Pay no attention to the remains of chewing gum around the lenses.)
Re:Will the cameras work? (Score:4, Interesting)
Add more, Body cam, gun cam, taser cam and pepper spray cam. If the officer is going to escalate force it must be documented. "Failure" of multiple filming devices at the same time is grounds for immediate arrest of the officer.
Re:Will the cameras work? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or will we one day hear, that, unfortunately, the cameras worn by the officers involved had "malfunctioned" at the most inopportune moment?
(Pay no attention to the remains of chewing gum around the lenses.)
Indeed, but then it will immediately put suspicion on the police officer, whereas at the moment there is nothing other than their sayso about what happened. Since police testimony is often implicitly trusted by magistrates and juries, I would much rather there be a 'but what happened to your camera?' defence than not at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but the alternative of not having them at all is certainly not better. If there's that level of corruption (and I would believe there is) then cameras are going to help expose it.
Re:Will the cameras work? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, but the evidence is there. There's witness testimony, and while circumstantial, missing footage at exactly the right moment could easily be represented as corroboration of the testimony.
The defense would then have to come up with a narrative that sheds reasonable doubts on that interpretation.
In a court of law, conspicuous absence of evidence tends to get a bit of attention.
Re:Will the cameras work? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not asking for perfect. We're asking for better
Re: (Score:3)
It may be missed in this debate, but cameras should change the behavior of citizens also. If a moron is arrested, claims the usual 'brutality' defense, and is confronted with video that prejudices the judge or jury against them to the tune of some time in jail, perhaps they will stop short the next time and try not to pile on additional charges.,
i'm not hopeful that morons will stop breaking the law, but they might stop being excessive idiots when the police are documenting their idiocy.
Wishful thinking, ma
The death of leniency (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with this is that if all cops feel like they're being audited all of the time, they're less likely to let you off the hook for a minor violation. Then since they have to charge you with something, and there's supporting evidence, you're not going to get a plea or reduction from a mandatory sentence in court.
I know that doesn't sound like a big deal but cops let thousands of people off per day on minor things where people just need a warning.
Re:The death of leniency (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The death of leniency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The death of leniency (Score:4, Insightful)
Police are given wide discretion by the courts. There is no reason to believe that anyone will be auditing them for failure to write up a citation.
This is more to prevent them from beating the ever-loving-crap out of a black guy for driving in the wrong neighborhood. *Ahem* Sorry: "resisting arrest".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno, to me it looks like tactical language so as to not aggravate the police force & automatically put them on the defensive. If you want someone to comply, you give them a reason to *want* to do it.
If you tell people you want to restrict their freedoms so you have more control over them, they'll rebel. If you tell people that you're trying to protect them (think of the children!), they'll hand you their liberties without a second thought.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that this COULD help a police officer who has been wrongly accused. Take the Ferguson case, for example. Let's suppose that the officer had a body camera and it clearly showed the kid doing what the officer claimed he did. Perhaps people would agree with the officer and not be calling for his arrest. However, if the officer had a body camera and it showed the kid standing with his arms up while the cop opened fire, it would provide hard evidence of wrong doing. In other words, this could help ex
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to indicate that the poor, defenseless disenfranchised police officers are the victims in all of this
No, the victims are the residents and business owners in a trashed place like Ferguson where a bunch of idiots decided that wrecking the place is the right reaction to events like that lovable big lug, Mike Brown, being shot for no reason whatsoever. We know it was for no reason because thoroughly reliable witnesses (like, the guy who was within him when Lovable Big Mike, the 6'-4" 300-pound Gentle Giant was intimidating a retail clerk) said so, and the witness who said he was "shot in the back, execution
Re:The death of leniency (Score:5, Insightful)
That may, actually, be a good thing — enforcing police objectivity by ending the selective enforcement [wikipedia.org] (sometimes affectionately referred to as "Prosecutorial Discretion" [dailykos.com]).
Then, if a silly law affects too many people — including judges, mayors, and good-looking women, who would've all gotten off with a warning before — the law may get amended...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The death of leniency (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this is that if all cops feel like they're being audited all of the time, they're less likely to let you off the hook for a minor violation. Then since they have to charge you with something, and there's supporting evidence, you're not going to get a plea or reduction from a mandatory sentence in court.
I know that doesn't sound like a big deal but cops let thousands of people off per day on minor things where people just need a warning.
Frankly, I'm a little less concerned with the "problem" of cops letting off people who do commit minor infractions, than the problem of cops falsifying evidence or destroying exculpatory evidence, beating or torturing suspects, and lying on police reports in order to arrest people who haven't committed any crime. You getting out of a speeding ticket for going 60 in a 55 is less important than Joe Innocent getting arrested for walking in the wrong part of town while black, having a gun with defaced serial numbers planted on him, and suddenly facing 10 year felony charge with an "option" to plead guilty and only get a year (and a felony record).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The death of leniency (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with this is that if all cops feel like they're being audited all of the time, they're less likely to let you off the hook for a minor violation
This would be a great thing.
I say that not because I have a stick up my ass, but because I recognize that selective enforcement is a huge problem in this society. The problem isn't that some people get away with some offenses. The problem is that it creates a society that is complacent with criminalization or prohibition of huge ranges of activities based on the understanding that cops will be reasonable people and will exercise good judgement to pursue only "the right" infractions. This is terrible for two reasons, primarily. The first reason why selective enforcement is terrible is because it allows for an absurd legal code. Harvey Silverglate's book "Three Felonies a Day" outlines how our current system ensures that virtually everyone is guilty of something. Selective enforcement is the only reason that 99% of our population is able to be free from prison at any given point in time. The elimination of selective enforcement would force a long-overdue overhaul of our legal code in order to avoid a 100% incarceration rate.
The second reason why selective enforcement is terrible is because it affords law enforcement officials entirely too much power, power which is frequently abused. The problem is that cops are the ones that decide who gets away with what. Not only does that create a huge conflict of interest [wikipedia.org] which prevents police from being able to police each other, but it also opens up other avenues of favoritism, encourages bribery, and overall corrupts our system of justice.
If cops couldn't let thousands of people off per day on minor things, those minor things would cease to be illegal and our legal code would finally have some semblance of sanity.
Re:The death of leniency (Score:4, Insightful)
The saying goes: "If everyone is guilty of something, they can punish anyone for anything."
Don't like someone's youtube channel? Find a video which has a poster of Tinkerbell in the background and get Disney to DMCA
Don't like someone's racial background or religion, wait until they fail to stop 10 feet behind an intersection and give them a ticket. Search their car while you are at it
I commit thousands of crimes a year, and so do you. That isn't a problem with me or you, or even law enforcement. The letter of the law is so screwed up that there is no possible way to root out corruption and discrimination.
The death of leniency (Score:3)
That sounds more like a passive-aggressive mafia threat than a realistic possibility. "Oh, you better not do that, or else we might have to stop being so lenient with you!" Why would wearing cameras mean that "they have to charge you with something"? Why would the public tolerate a police force that operates on a mentality like that?
This is exactly why we need cameras. Individual departments and officers are unique, but in general the American public has lost its faith in its police forces, and for damned g
Re: (Score:3)
Virtually none of them being young black men, which is the exact problem typifying US LEO since the Jim Crow days.
Re:The death of leniency (Score:4, Insightful)
The camera video doesn't mean a constant audit. If a cop pulls you over for speeding and lets you go with a warning, his supervisor isn't going to be viewing that recording. If the cop pulls you over for speeding, drags you out of the car, beats you, and then claims that you pulled a gun on him, the supervisor (and possibly jury too) will view the recording and be able to tell whether the officer was correct in his actions.
Re: (Score:3)
But if *every single person* got pulled-over for speeding every day, we would probably change the law!
Amen!
Re: (Score:3)
That wasn't really my intent -- what I'm saying is that always having the cops on cam will take away their 'human' side and they'll just be encouraged more towards robot enforcers. I don't think it'll help much with planted evidence and framing -- those types of things will be done with some sort of coincidental leaving the camera in the car or disabling it or even having someone else commit the plant. There's an economy for those sorts of activities, and there will always be a price that someone is willi
Re:The death of leniency (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this any different than dash cams on police cars? Police regularly give out warnings while being filmed without any repercussions.
In theory it is the same concept, but in practice it is very different.
1. Dash cams are fixed and (usually) only see what is happening in front of the police car, which is normally on a public right-of-way and therefore where the public could also observe and record*. What happens elsewhere, like when an officer goes inside a private residence, isn't captured by dash cams. A body cam on the other hand would frequently be recording events that are not occurring where the public can see, and this is a significant difference for accountability. It should see what is happening in front of the officer (note, NOT necessarily what the officer is seeing since the officer could be looking to the side) which is where any action of interest is most likely to be.
2. Dash cams use a system located in the car, typically the trunk, and can hold a large amount of high-quality video. Body cams will have stricter limits due to size and weight so may be much more limited on what they can capture.
3. Dash cams are located inside the protected shell of the police car and, short of a crash, should not have frequent failures. Body cams on the other hand will be operating in a much more hostile environment (officer's opinion aside), being exposed to weather, physical trauma, getting material thrown on or over the lens, etc.
We already have a problem of a high "failure" rate for dash cams, and I expect the same issue with body cams. Some here are advocating punishments to officers when a camera stops working, either directly or in how evidence is treated, but this would punish innocent officers whose cameras legitimately fail, since after all, they are operating in truly hostile environments. An officer whose camera seems to consistently fail, or where the officer seems to frequently "forget" to turn it on, are a different matter. We need a way of telling legit from illegit failures so we don't punish the innocent officers in our rush to punish guilty ones.
* I don't know the current status of a couple states that have tried to make recording of officers in public a crime.
Re: (Score:3)
You're either racist, or bad at making jokes.
Every place that has implemented it has done great (Score:4, Insightful)
Fewer complaints against the cops, complaints get resolved quickly and fairly, fewer cases of cops using violence, they caught one copkiller because the cop he killed had filmed his face.
It's been good for just about everyone, yet some cops keep resisting. I guess because they no longer get their 3 months paid vacation while complaints get kicked around by the unionistas before being summarily dismissed, replacing that with a day off while the tape is reviewed is a hard sell.
The surveillance state (Score:4, Interesting)
For once, a form of government surveillance I can support!
Re: (Score:3)
Are we sure about this? In the end, cops are individual people, and they're interacting one-on-one on the ground with people in their own community, most hopefully for the better, some for the worse. This looks like a step towards involuntary ubiquitous surveillance for the individual, civilian cop or regular civilian, while visibility into decisions and actions of larger organizations, those that affect large groups at once, is still hazy or completely unavailable:
One step further (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a good idea, don't get me wrong. It's about time we used this ubiquitous cheap technology in an obviously beneficial way. It's a good move, and one I support.
But either after this comes about, or as part of the deal, the content of that camera needs to be stored offsite and specifically out of the reach of the police officer. Otherwise we're going to see a lot of data simply go missing at convenient times. To be frank, we can't trust police departments to hold onto evidence that could incriminate themselves.
And any evidence that an officer tampered with their camera in an effort to suppress incriminating evidence should be dealt with exactly as if they had destroyed evidence. Because that's what it is.
Re:One step further (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a good idea, don't get me wrong. It's about time we used this ubiquitous cheap technology in an obviously beneficial way. It's a good move, and one I support.
But either after this comes about, or as part of the deal, the content of that camera needs to be stored offsite and specifically out of the reach of the police officer. Otherwise we're going to see a lot of data simply go missing at convenient times. To be frank, we can't trust police departments to hold onto evidence that could incriminate themselves.
And any evidence that an officer tampered with their camera in an effort to suppress incriminating evidence should be dealt with exactly as if they had destroyed evidence. Because that's what it is.
Actually this is a real problem... so much so that in departments that have these cameras, many require the officer to write their report before being allowed to view the video. If they can see the video, they often end up crafting their report to fit the video of the incident while the victim/perpetrator doesn't have that advantage.
Imagine my surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Albuquerque has had problems recently with police shooting a homeless man and their lapel cameras show something that appears to be a real unjustified use of force.
Now that there is loads of bad press from the released videos, the last couple of "incidents" have been plagued with ummm... Camera Malfunctions! That's it. The cameras just malfunctioned and didn't work. We just don't understand it. Sorry, but we don't have any video of that last shooting...
A really good idea, but the devil is in the details.
This is already happening in parts of England (Score:3)
Grampian Police [bbc.co.uk] started this a year ago and the police in London [bbc.co.uk] in May.
Police good, people bad (Score:4, Insightful)
"And police officers are now at a disadvantage, because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of the encounter. And it gives the impression that the police officer has overreacted when they haven't."
Or maybe they have, because they have the legal authority to use force and the citizenry they are sworn to protect and serve do not.
I find it a very disturbing trend that "ordinary citizens" are now viewed as dangerous and "the enemy" from which the noble police (and other official institutions) must be protected. When I grew up, the general tone was that of Blackstone's Formulation ("It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"). Now it seems to be "It's better that ten innocent persons suffer than that one guilty person escape".
For the cops that oppose (Score:3)
My dad is a retired cop, very honest guy (though maybe I'm a bit biased). Most of the guys on the force were genuine good guys, of course there was 1 or 2 jackass's that would do stupid shit.
If a chest cam is going to eliminate the contradictions between the cop and the suspect, so be it. A few thousand people died 13 years ago in a terrorist attack and now the rest of us who want to fly on a commercial aircraft are treated as potential terrorists.
Re:For the cops that oppose (Score:4, Interesting)
My dad is a retired cop, very honest guy (though maybe I'm a bit biased). Most of the guys on the force were genuine good guys, of course there was 1 or 2 jackass's that would do stupid shit.
Ask him if these jackasses ever did any stupid shit that he observed. Did he arrest them? Did he report them? Did he let it slide? Did he cover it up?
If he answers more towards the later, rather than the former, then he wasn't a "genuine good guy". Everyone I've ever talked to with ties to a police department swears that the majority are good apples, and yet the entire police force seems to look after their own when shit hits the fan.
Re:For the cops that oppose (Score:5, Informative)
Can we stop using the word 'TAPE' (Score:3)
It's 2014 and nobody uses tape to record. Recorded data should be sent to a remote data store that the defendants, PD and DA have read only access to.
For Classrooms Too (Score:4, Interesting)
It would end the 'he said/she said' arguments when a kid is being disruptive and the parent refuses to believe their snowflake is anything other than perfect.
It could also allow for a better means of evaluating a teacher's performance. Currently it is done with in person audits by an administrator...teachers behave quite differently under that situation.
Re:For Classrooms Too (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a small, good start. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll be happier when I see cameras on the politicians. It'd be interesting to know what they agree to do in private lunch meetings with corporate CEOs and billionaire bankers. Criminally interesting, I suspect.
Re: (Score:3)
Every person whose salary I paid by the taxpayers must wear a camera while on duty, which shall stream in real-time to a publically-accessible internet site.
Re:It's a small, good start. (Score:4, Insightful)
My garbage is collected by a private company, not the government. And I have alternatives if they do not perform to my satisfaction. So no cameras for them. But if my local government wants to get into the garbage business, they wear cameras, sorry.
No time delay, no court. No exceptions - I'm looking at you, Mr. President, congressman, justice, TSA and NSA. And any tampering is evidence of malfeasance.
anacdotal evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
Just a few years ago, I got pulled over for honking my horn at someone that was about to hit me. I don't think the cop saw the other car... but whatever. When he walked up to the car he yelled "Something wrong with your horn??!?!" to which I replied "Nope, I just tested it and it worked just fine." his reply was to draw his gun on me. I'm white, was 35 at the time, ware business casual and a business haircut.
This isn't a race issue, it's a cop issue. I've had numerous run-ins with the police like this that more or less boil down to me having a smart mouth and not "respecting their authority" because, quite frankly, I don't. I shouldn't be afraid every time I get pulled over, but I am. That's not right.
My son is adopted, and African American, and you're damned sure he's getting the talk when he's old enough. The police are not your friends, they are not here to help. They can legally murder you where you stand and get away with it on a routine basis. I would not say that the majority of them are "Good guys" and this is just a few bad eggs. I think the position attracts certain kinds of people that have ego problems and use the job to exert a psychological need to control others. The screening process and training they receive needs to change radically. I've never had a positive encounter with a police officer. Even when my home got broken into they used the opportunity to search my belonging because it was a "crime scene" That sort of behavior engenders distrust and leads to less crime being reported.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Founding fathers would approve filming... (Score:3)
Separation of powers happened because the founding fathers understood that no single concentrated power could be trusted. Universal surveillance of all government officials would simply be an extension of this principal.
The founding fathers would approve filming government at ALL levels, from congress to notary. Multiple cameras (in the case of cops, dash-cam and chest-cam), streaming to web, with read-only access and multiple, physically separated backups.
There is no *technical* reason this can't be done, and frankly, it's a good idea. Think how much crap congress and K-Street wouldn't have gotten away with, had this been in place.
Being watched helps with good behavior (Score:3)
I took a citizens class at the local PD. They said an officer had received many complaints against him. In response, the chief required that he have his radio broadcasting audio during every single interaction he had with the public. The complaints ceased.
This is an awesome idea. Not original at all, of course. I fully support it.
Every Inch of A Jail (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:One correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One correction (Score:5, Insightful)
and states are completely free to fund their own law enforcement needs without asking the fed for money
Re:One correction (Score:4, Informative)
Re:One correction (Score:4, Informative)
Constitutional amendments libertarians don't like are unconstitutional FYI.
Re: (Score:3)
Fine. But the fed shouldn't be taking that money from states' residents in the first place. It's subversion of the constitution by the backdoor and should be stopped.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Sixteenth Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
So, the taxes are EXPLICITLY a power delegated to the United States.
Re:Precedent, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)