• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Value of body cameras

Sickening that the cop wasn't charged, but without the video he probably wouldn't have even "resigned", and the civilian would be sitting in jail for the crime of sitting on his mother's porch.
 
The department said they violated policy, no charges filed and the officers were allowed to resign so that they can easily get hired in another jurisdiction. The cycle continues.
 
I think every large City should have these however I understand the Police Unions concern over these. There really are minimal privacy laws regarding them and I wouldn't want an employer putting a camera on me an reviewing everything I did over the day, recording every interaction I had with everyone.
 
Didn't watch every single moment of the video, but am I understanding the gist goes like this: neighbors call police about someone acting suspiciously, police arrive to find man with no ID claiming he lives there, they run his name and appears to be legit, man attempts to call Mom who lives at the house at which time the officer attempts to stop the call, then they arrest and handcuff the man. Am I missing anything?
 
Fanatical Meat said:
I think every large City should have these however I understand the Police Unions concern over these. There really are minimal privacy laws regarding them and I wouldn't want an employer putting a camera on me an reviewing everything I did over the day, recording every interaction I had with everyone.
Click to expand...

It only becomes an issue if the cop kills somebody or beats the ever living shit out of them. If you are a good cop who follows protocol, you should want a camera. It will EXONERATE you. I certainly don't see a reason for the Police Unions to oppose it. Especially since that age of iphones means that partial tape on these encounters is bound to pop up. If the police have the ENTIRE event on film and they acted appropriately, it may help them. On the other hand, if the police union knows that a sizeable portion of their department are thugs and routinely violate the rights of innocent people and that is why they oppose body cameras, well then that just makes the police union immoral monsters.
 
bshole said:
It only becomes an issue if the cop kills somebody or beats the ever living shit out of them. If you are a good cop who follows protocol, you should want a camera. It will EXONERATE you. I certainly don't see a reason for the Police Unions to oppose it.
Click to expand...

Not really from my understanding there isn't any protocol to secure the tapes a tape of a Cop talking to his wife about her miscarriage could be leaked out or a Cop taking a dump on the toilet could be leaked out or someone in the station could review the tape to evaluate performance, which sounds OK until you think of yourself do you really need someone nit picking over every single thing you did over a day, week, month, year?
 
bshole said:
It only becomes an issue if the cop kills somebody or beats the ever living shit out of them. If you are a good cop who follows protocol, you should want a camera. It will EXONERATE you. I certainly don't see a reason for the Police Unions to oppose it. Especially since that age of iphones means that partial tape on these encounters is bound to pop up. If the police have the ENTIRE event on film and they acted appropriately, it may help them. On the other hand, if the police union knows that a sizeable portion of their department are thugs and routinely violate the rights of innocent people and that is why they oppose body cameras, well then that just makes the police union immoral monsters.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with police unions negotiating the terms and conditions of body cameras. There are some legitimate concerns about privacy and how the footage can be released or provided in legal discovery, etc. There is a legitimate public interest in having body cameras but the people who would be wearing them should be allowed some input into the policies and procedures for them and their usage.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Not really from my understanding there isn't any protocol to secure the tapes a tape of a Cop talking to his wife about her miscarriage could be leaked out or a Cop taking a dump on the toilet could be leaked out or someone in the station could review the tape to evaluate performance, which sounds OK until you think of yourself do you really need someone nit picking over every single thing you did over a day, week, month, year?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that tape turns on at the start of each encounter, it is not running continuously. If it were running continuously that would be onerous and wrong. We need some clarification because we are arguing based on different assumed facts.
 
glenn1 said:
I don't have a problem with police unions negotiating the terms and conditions of body cameras. There are some legitimate concerns about privacy and how the footage can be released or provided in legal discovery, etc. There is a legitimate public interest in having body cameras but the people who would be wearing them should be allowed some input into the policies and procedures for them and their usage.
Click to expand...

Lets not forget that you or I could be recorded unknowingly be in a Police camera while not involved in a crime and that could get released.
 
bshole said:
My understanding is that tape turns on at the start of each encounter, it is not running continuously. If it were running continuously that would be onerous and wrong. We need some clarification because we are arguing based on different assumed facts.
Click to expand...

Who turns it on, who turns it off? What is an encounter. These are the points I'm talking about.
 
glenn1 said:
I don't have a problem with police unions negotiating the terms and conditions of body cameras. There are some legitimate concerns about privacy and how the footage can be released or provided in legal discovery, etc. There is a legitimate public interest in having body cameras but the people who would be wearing them should be allowed some input into the policies and procedures for them and their usage.
Click to expand...

Privacy for whom? I can understand bathroom breaks and lunch, but I always thought we paid Police while they were WORKING.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Who turns it on, who turns it off? What is an encounter. These are the points I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Well I asked first, you don't get to ask back in response.

I would support turning on the cameras automatically (COMPUTER CONTROLLED) when the lights/sirens are turned on and remain on until the lights were turned off. This would cover every traffic stop from start to finish. That would be the baseline to start with and that was what I assumed they did.


I am under video surveillance 100% of the time I am at work EXCEPT when I am in the bathroom
 
bshole said:
Well I asked first, you don't get to ask back in response.

I would support turning on the cameras automatically (COMPUTER CONTROLLED) when the lights/sirens are turned on and remain on until the lights were turned off. This would cover every traffic stop from start to finish. That would be the baseline to start with and that was what I assumed they did.


I am under video surveillance 100% of the time I am at work EXCEPT when I am in the bathroom
Click to expand...

Neither am I. I just am saying I understand the Police Unions resistance and its a good discussion point.
 
emperus said:
Privacy for whom? I can understand bathroom breaks and lunch, but I always thought we paid Police while they were WORKING.
Click to expand...

So you'd be OK being under perpetual surveillance at work, video and audio. You wouldn't have any problems with that ever? Lets not forget you could be recorded by accident admittedly you don't have a right to privacy on the street but Cops go into houses and businesses too.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
So you'd be OK being under perpetual surveillance at work, video and audio. You wouldn't have any problems with that ever? Lets not forget you could be recorded by accident admittedly you don't have a right to privacy on the street but Cops go into houses and businesses too.
Click to expand...

We are and it does not bother us. I don't understand why you think it should bother us to be recorded while at work.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
So you'd be OK being under perpetual surveillance at work, video and audio. You wouldn't have any problems with that ever? Lets not forget you could be recorded by accident admittedly you don't have a right to privacy on the street but Cops go into houses and businesses too.
Click to expand...

I think we all give up your right to privacy when we go to work, whether it be being recorded in and around the building, or having the possibility of our phones and emails monitored.

I do believe that the privacy of non-officers should be protected. But to my argument the police unions don't protect non-officers' rights.

Edit: This issue also has high public interests. Police have the ability to take your freedom and/or life. . And if their word is to be taken over Joe public, Joe public should have the ability to demonstrate what happens.
 
emperus said:
I think we all give up your right to privacy when we go to work, whether it be being recorded in and around the building, or having the possibility of our phones and emails monitored.

I do believe that the privacy of non-officers should be protected. But to my argument the police unions don't protect non-officers' rights.

Edit: This issue also has high public interests. Police have the ability to take your freedom and/or life. . And if their word is to be taken over Joe public, Joe public should have the ability to demonstrate what happens.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying I do want to point out the right to privacy is usually signed off when you are hired it doesn't apply to someone who walks in with a camera for example your employer may record all your phone calls from your desk phone, that fact alone does not make it alright for someone else to call you and record your conversation without your knowledge.
 
glenn1 said:
Didn't watch every single moment of the video, but am I understanding the gist goes like this: neighbors call police about someone acting suspiciously, police arrive to find man with no ID claiming he lives there, they run his name and appears to be legit, man attempts to call Mom who lives at the house at which time the officer attempts to stop the call, then they arrest and handcuff the man. Am I missing anything?
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
He gives the female officer his ID at 7:30 in the video.
 
pauldun170 said:
Incorrect.
He gives the female officer his ID at 7:30 in the video.
Click to expand...

Thanks. What was the stated reason of the officers for not stopping their investigation at that point? Were they waiting for the mother to call and say the son was authorized to be hanging out on the front porch?
 
bshole said:
It only becomes an issue if the cop kills somebody or beats the ever living shit out of them. If you are a good cop who follows protocol, you should want a camera. It will EXONERATE you. I certainly don't see a reason for the Police Unions to oppose it. Especially since that age of iphones means that partial tape on these encounters is bound to pop up. If the police have the ENTIRE event on film and they acted appropriately, it may help them. On the other hand, if the police union knows that a sizeable portion of their department are thugs and routinely violate the rights of innocent people and that is why they oppose body cameras, well then that just makes the police union immoral monsters.
Click to expand...

You don't get a good cop. You get a by-the-book cop.

Policeman/Policewoman is a good person, generally pretty relaxed. They see some kids underage drinking/smoking weed and tell them off, letting them go with a warning.

Now add the camera. Now their actions are on record - they will get in trouble if they don't take action. Result: kids get charged.

Most of the police are good people and adding a camera to the mix simply removes a lot of the policeman's ability to exercise discretion. This is why many good police don't like the cameras.

I'm not saying that cameras are inherently bad but there are negatives as well.
 
Enigmoid said:
You don't get a good cop. You get a by-the-book cop.

Policeman/Policewoman is a good person, generally pretty relaxed. They see some kids underage drinking/smoking weed and tell them off, letting them go with a warning.

Now add the camera. Now their actions are on record - they will get in trouble if they don't take action. Result: kids get charged.

Most of the police are good people and adding a camera to the mix simply removes a lot of the policeman's ability to exercise discretion. This is why many good police don't like the cameras.

I'm not saying that cameras are inherently bad but there are negatives as well.
Click to expand...

I want a by the book cop. I don't want someone who's playing judge and enforcement, that leads to corruption.
The law applies equally to all or it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Edit: Using your example:
A warning ticket could be issued and parents (if applicable) would be notified.
 
soundforbjt said:
I want a by the book cop. I don't want someone who's playing judge and enforcement, that leads to corruption.
The law applies equally to all or it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Edit: Using your example:
A warning ticket could be issued and parents (if applicable) would be notified.
Click to expand...

This. Plus, when happy casual officer Bob lets a white kid off with a warning and arrests a black kid over a joint, at the very least it will serve as a wake-up call to people that support the war on drugs. No double-standards. If enforcing a given law is unjust, then let the law be repealed. Officers are there simply to enforce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top