Black Lives Matter: to the tune of $4 each

[The Merg]

And then immediately started the action of putting it in his back pocket. Makes perfect sense!

As I stated above, I think it is more likely he was “raising the gun” to put it in his pocket and the officer mistook it for him raising it at him.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

Thank you. The cops always say that when the deceased can't claim otherwise. I'd be inclined to believe them had the door not been closed when the shooting occurred. That's really unacceptable regardless of what might have transpired up to that point.

One of the more interesting parts is that the cops did not say that they announced themselves as police.

Yeah, that’s a little strange as well. There is a dispute over whether they announced themselves. Either they did or they didn’t. Although, if he opened the garage and sees an officer in uniform, it should be pretty clear as to who they are. Now that can create a bit of a trick bag in the sense that someone hears banging on their door that doesn’t stop so they open the door with a gun and then see the cops there.

- Merg

 

[Darwin333]

The biggest roadblock is cost. For the Department near me, the initial cost is over $2 million and then it will cost at least a couple million a year in storage costs, which will probably keep going up due the retention times required for certain incidents.

Along with that, there are issues with creating my policies for when and where the cameras are used. For instance, the ACLU has filed suits in some situations saying the cameras are violating people’s right to privacy. There are also questions about how to handle sexual assault incidents.

- Merg

My parish Sheriff's department has made the same claim, that costs are the issue for widespread body cam adoption. At the same time they have a big ass "tank" for SWAT, something that I have yet to hear about a single situation that it was actually needed, and not one but two helicopters. No telling how many other toys they have but those are some of the big ones that I know about but body cams, naw, can't afford that shit.

 

[mect]

Nobody is forced to take the job as a LEO. If you don't like the requirements, then dont do it.

I would suggest that such a requirement would further diminish what I consider an already large deficiency in the quality of law enforcement officers. Who is going to take a job where getting shot at is a real possibility while not being able to use deadly force to defend oneself until after shots are fired?

 

[ch33zw1z]

I would suggest that such a requirement would further diminish what I consider an already large deficiency in the quality of law enforcement officers. Who is going to take a job where getting shot at is a real possibility while not being able to use deadly force to defend oneself until after shots are fired?

I agree our quality of LEO is lacking in some ways. I disagree, allowing LEOs to basically gun down anyone and make up whatever the hell they want isn't attracting quality people already.

 

[sdifox]

I would suggest that such a requirement would further diminish what I consider an already large deficiency in the quality of law enforcement officers. Who is going to take a job where getting shot at is a real possibility while not being able to use deadly force to defend oneself until after shots are fired?

Ask the rest of the Western world...

 

[The Merg]

My parish Sheriff's department has made the same claim, that costs are the issue for widespread body cam adoption. At the same time they have a big ass "tank" for SWAT, something that I have yet to hear about a single situation that it was actually needed, and not one but two helicopters. No telling how many other toys they have but those are some of the big ones that I know about but body cams, naw, can't afford that shit.

The "tank" you are referring to is most likely an HRV or armored personnel carrier. The department near me has one as well (actually two now). It is not a tank as it doesn't have a cannon on it. It is used to safely move officers up to a location without them being exposed. It is used in almost every barricade situation. It also has a ram on the front that is used to assist in breaching the front door (or even windows) on a house when they need to make or are getting ready to make entry (or send in a robot or gas/flash bangs). As for cost, in most cases, the departments don't pay for them as they are part of grants or "donations" from the Federal Government.

With regard to helicopters, the same department has two as well. They cycle them in and out so one does not get too many flight hours in order to keep it in good shape. For this department, the helicopters are used for medical as well. In fact, while the people on the helos are police officers, they are fully trained paramedics and their primary mission are medical calls.They will even break off of a police call to respond to a medical call.

So, yeah, the body cams are many times something that breaks the budget compared to those toys you mention as they are just a small cost with regards to maintenance, but with body cams there is the entire initial cost of setting up the program and then the continued maintenance cost, which will go up exponentially every year.

- Merg

 

[sdifox]

The "tank" you are referring to is most likely an HRV or armored personnel carrier. The department near me has one as well (actually two now). It is not a tank as it doesn't have a cannon on it. It is used to safely move officers up to a location without them being exposed. It is used in almost every barricade situation. It also has a ram on the front that is used to assist in breaching the front door (or even windows) on a house when they need to make or are getting ready to make entry (or send in a robot or gas/flash bangs). As for cost, in most cases, the departments don't pay for them as they are part of grants or "donations" from the Federal Government.

With regard to helicopters, the same department has two as well. They cycle them in and out so one does not get too many flight hours in order to keep it in good shape. For this department, the helicopters are used for medical as well. In fact, while the people on the helos are police officers, they are fully trained paramedics and their primary mission are medical calls.They will even break off of a police call to respond to a medical call.

So, yeah, the body cams are many times something that breaks the budget compared to those toys you mention as they are just a small cost with regards to maintenance, but with body cams there is the entire initial cost of setting up the program and then the continued maintenance cost, which will go up exponentially every year.

- Merg

This is the first time I have heard of helicopter maintenance and operating cost referred to as small cost.

 

[The Merg]

This is the first time I have heard of helicopter maintenance and operating cost referred to as small cost.

Small comparatively... I know it runs in the hundreds of thousands (plus the police department is splitting the cost with the fire department due to the dual roles)... Still less than half of what storage is for body cams... (Which in my opinion is outrageous)

- Merg

 

[FelixDeCat]

////

 

[sdifox]

Small comparatively... I know it runs in the hundreds of thousands (plus the police department is splitting the cost with the fire department due to the dual roles)... Still less than half of what storage is for body cams... (Which in my opinion is outrageous)

- Merg

Netflix is able to do 5mbps for 1080p so 2250MB per hour. There is no reason why police bodycam can't use use hevc to get better compression.

Also I think FBI should establish Central video archival service and local PDs just pay per use. I would say older videos can be moved to triplicate bluray discs.

Realistically 90% of the video is mundane worthless footage. I would say establish civilian erasure oversight committee where they get to decide if a particular recording needs to be kept. Say a month after recording.

 

[mect]

I agree our quality of LEO is lacking in some ways. I disagree, allowing LEOs to basically gun down anyone and make up whatever the hell they want isn't attracting quality people already.

There are a tremendous number of options between, "No shooting until you've been shot at" and "gun down anyone and make up whatever the hell they want".

 

[mect]

Ask the rest of the Western world...

The rest of the western world doesn't allow law enforcement officers to shoot until someone is shooting at them? Link?

 

[mect]

The "tank" you are referring to is most likely an HRV or armored personnel carrier. The department near me has one as well (actually two now). It is not a tank as it doesn't have a cannon on it. It is used to safely move officers up to a location without them being exposed. It is used in almost every barricade situation. It also has a ram on the front that is used to assist in breaching the front door (or even windows) on a house when they need to make or are getting ready to make entry (or send in a robot or gas/flash bangs). As for cost, in most cases, the departments don't pay for them as they are part of grants or "donations" from the Federal Government.

With regard to helicopters, the same department has two as well. They cycle them in and out so one does not get too many flight hours in order to keep it in good shape. For this department, the helicopters are used for medical as well. In fact, while the people on the helos are police officers, they are fully trained paramedics and their primary mission are medical calls.They will even break off of a police call to respond to a medical call.

So, yeah, the body cams are many times something that breaks the budget compared to those toys you mention as they are just a small cost with regards to maintenance, but with body cams there is the entire initial cost of setting up the program and then the continued maintenance cost, which will go up exponentially every year.

- Merg

You think the cost of technology maintenance for body cameras will go up exponentially every year?

 

[ch33zw1z]

There are a tremendous number of options between, "No shooting until you've been shot at" and "gun down anyone and make up whatever the hell they want".

I agree, yet the latter happens on a regular basis, it's rare to any form of substantial punishment, and a criminal conviction is a miracle.

So what is it do think is attracting these quality candidates?

 

[sdifox]

The rest of the western world doesn't allow law enforcement officers to shoot until someone is shooting at them? Link?

https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-03/iceland-grieves-after-police-kill-man-first-time-its-history
https://www.google.ca/amp/nationalp...police-are-so-good-at-not-shooting-people/amp
https://newrepublic.com/article/126473/american-cops-100-times-deadlier-finnish-police

Just a few examples. Of course you know regular British police walk around with no guns. They only call in armed police when necessary.

 

[sdifox]

You think the cost of technology maintenance for body cameras will go up exponentially every year?

I am assuming he is talking about storage cost.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You think the cost of technology maintenance for body cameras will go up exponentially every year?

Storage isn't cheap
I haven't researched this, but I am curious wrt the retention rules, security rules, etc...that this footage will be governed by

 

[mect]

I agree, yet the latter happens on a regular basis, it's rare to any form of substantial punishment, and a criminal conviction is a miracle.

So what is it do think is attracting these quality candidates?

As I said before, I don't think we are attracting quality candidates. I just think regulations requiring police officers to wait to shoot until someone has shot at them is equally asinine.

 

[dank69]

As I said before, I don't think we are attracting quality candidates. I just think regulations requiring police officers to wait to shoot until someone has shot at them is equally asinine.

If it is good enough for the military, why is it not good enough for our police? I suppose exceptions might have to be made to protect hostages or innocent bystanders though.

I would think this policy would attract people who are willing to put their life on the line to save people and discourage candidates that just want to abuse power.

 

[mect]

https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-03/iceland-grieves-after-police-kill-man-first-time-its-history
https://www.google.ca/amp/nationalp...police-are-so-good-at-not-shooting-people/amp
https://newrepublic.com/article/126473/american-cops-100-times-deadlier-finnish-police

Just a few examples. Of course you know regular British police walk around with no guns. They only call in armed police when necessary.

You realize not a single one of those links supports that these countries require police to wait until someone is shooting at them before returning fire, right. Having regular officers not carry guns is an option we could consider. Granted, if we do this I assume they wouldn't sent in to situations with armed perpetrators. In addition, with the number of guns in America, such a policy probably isn't going to be reasonable in my opinion. If we want to disarm our law enforcement, we first need to disarm the general population. I think your Canadian link actually details exactly what we should be focusing on with our law enforcement. Note that no where does it state that Canadian law enforcement isn't allowed to use deadly force until they've been shot at. Rather their training focuses on deescalating situations. That is that middle ground I've been talking about.

 

[mect]

Storage isn't cheap
I haven't researched this, but I am curious wrt the retention rules, security rules, etc...that this footage will be governed by

I suppose it all depends on how one defines cheap, but I'd argue that it is relatively cheap, and is getting cheaper all the time, not increasing in price exponentially. Sure, you'd need to set reasonable requirements on archiving, but it is far better to have semi-lax archiving rules than to just not collect the data at all. Something along the lines of archiving everything for a month and significant interactions with individuals to match the statute of limitations timeline.

 

[mect]

If it is good enough for the military, why is it not good enough for our police? I suppose exceptions might have to be made to protect hostages or innocent bystanders though.

I would think this policy would attract people who are willing to put their life on the line to save people and discourage candidates that just want to abuse power.

Link supporting that the military must wait to fire until they've been fired upon?

And no one wants to put their life needlessly on the line. Do you seriously think there are people that would be attracted to police service knowing that someone could be pointing a gun at their head and the police force would be unable to use lethal force until the first shot was fired.

 

[dank69]

Link supporting that the military must wait to fire until they've been fired upon?

And no one wants to put their life needlessly on the line. Do you seriously think there are people that would be attracted to police service knowing that someone could be pointing a gun at their head and the police force would be unable to use lethal force until the first shot was fired.

I think it is part of NATO RoE

 

[dainthomas]

As I said before, I don't think we are attracting quality candidates. I just think regulations requiring police officers to wait to shoot until someone has shot at them is equally asinine.

I don't remember the case, but there was a court ruling where a guy sued when the police department wouldn't hire him because he scored too high on an intelligence test. And he lost. So they're actively seeking low (or at best average) intelligence people.