Cameras On Cops: Coming To a Town Near You

An anonymous reader writes "The trend of police officers using body-mounted cameras is going nationwide. As we discussed last month, the NYPD is pondering the cameras, and the LAPD is actively testing them. A town in California (population ~100,000) has tested them with seeming success: incidents involving officers using force have dropped more than half, and citizen complaints have dropped almost 90%. '[C]ops are required to turn on their cameras in any confrontation with a suspect or citizen. The footage is uploaded to computers when they return to the station, and is typically retained for one to three months.' The town's success is even drawing interest from police departments in other countries. The ACLU likes the idea, but has problems with it in practice, so they're opposing the trend (PDF). They worry about privacy abuses, and they want citizens caught on camera to be allowed equal access to the footage."

Comments

Won't do any good.

[rahvin112]

Fact is as long as they can turn the cameras on or off and the video is in police custody this will do almost nothing to reduce police abuse. Either the camera will be off, the video will be "lost" or the recording device will be "broken". They want the video for convictions, but they will make damn sure the video is lost or the camera is off when they go to beat the shit out of some innocent person.

They should be required to wear camera, the cameras should record while they are on shift and video should be stored by an independent third party. Any missing footage should result in someone being fired.

Re:Won't do any good.

[NotDrWho]

Yeah, but it's great for when you need admissible footage of some criminal screaming "DICK JONES! I WORK FOR DICK JONES! HE OWNS THE COPS!"

Re:Won't do any good.

[mythosaz]

A lot of the good (from the police perspective) is that people don't act like jerks when they're clearly being filmed. Amazingly you're less likely to be a dick to cops when the camera is on you. In-car cameras turn on and off automatically when they have the lights and sirens on. Pull a guy over, and video gets shot - period. Wearables don't have that yet, but we'll get there.

I know that even mentioning this on /. gets you modded to oblivion, but the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world -- and they're not out there looking to bust heads and turn off their cameras...especially in a world where every last person on a planet has their own camera and might catch it. There's obviously a good number of well documented "bad cop" cases, but there's a lot of cops, and bad cop stories make news, because it's a big violation of our trust.

The ACLU and others will fight for transparency with those videos - and the videos will keep cops and people safer.

Re:Won't do any good.

[sharknado]

I wouldn't say it will do 'almost nothing', since the stats clearly show otherwise.

Still, if police were *required* to submit video evidence for any trial that involves an officer or have the case dismissed, it would certainly cut down on police corruption. Police wouldn't be able to use the 'oh, my camera was broken' or 'I forgot to turn it on' as an excuse.

Re:Won't do any good.

[aardvarkjoe]

Fact is as long as they can turn the cameras on or off and the video is in police custody this will do almost nothing to reduce police abuse. Either the camera will be off, the video will be "lost" or the recording device will be "broken". They want the video for convictions, but they will make damn sure the video is lost or the camera is off when they go to beat the shit out of some innocent person.

And yet, the actual evidence cited in the summary shows the exact opposite result of your theory.

Kind of funny, considering that you also posted a comment about how the anti-vaccination movement ignores real evidence that contradicts their views.

Re:Won't do any good.

[sjames]

It will never happen, but if a law was passed that when the video is unavailable, the citizen's report is presumed to be true and complete, I'll bet those cameras would suddenly get a lot more reliable.

Re:Won't do any good.

[aardvarkjoe]

Not only this -- I suspect that a large part of the 90% drop in complaints has to do with the fact that it makes it a lot harder for people to lie about their interaction with a police officer.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen.

I just installed cameras in my car to prove the next time a cop tailgates me for over 20 miles nearly touching my bumper.

I got annoyed at him and changed lanes right next to another car so he couldn't stay behind me endangering my safety. Then he turns his lights on and pulls me over only to pull up next to me and say that I should not have made a maneuver to keep him from tailgating.

I bitched him out right then and there and said that at 70mph the proper following distance is more than the 2 feet he was using. I then threatened to file a complaint for harassment. As a clean record safe driver in an import with a big spoiler.... they cannot legally tail gate me for over 20 miles without it being harassment.

Run my plate, see I'm clean, get the FUCK off my ass and quit endangering my safety should we need to emergency brake. Now I have cameras to prove next time this happens. I'm tired of being harassed in Michigan for not buying american. Americans aren't smart enough to make a 300 horsepower four wheel drive small car..... But these cops seem to love Mustangs and harass imports like no tomorrow.

Can't wait to upload the next encounter to youtube and make the officer an internet sensation!

Re:Won't do any good.

[gurps_npc]

I assure you if a camera was supposed to be 'on', and it wasn't, any reasonable prosecutor will throw out the case if the defense refuses to plead guilty. Don't be surprised if jurys are told that the footage should have existed but doesn't.

Re:Won't do any good.

[SuricouRaven]

Until the day the first rapist or murderer discovers the camera really was broken - at which point the media will rally against this 'loophole' that allows serious criminals to 'get off on a technicality' and there will be immense public pressure to undo it.

Re:Won't do any good.

[PetiePooo]

Any missing footage should result in someone being fired.

Agreed.

There is one plus side to ubiquitous cameras operated by the police: It will be harder for the police to justify denying us the ability to record our interactions with them. Some police departments haven't gotten the memo yet...

Re:Won't do any good.

[smooth wombat]

makes it a lot harder for people to lie about their interaction with a police officer.

I remember a case where a woman claimed she was beaten in the back of a patrol car by the two responding officers. Too bad for her there was an in-car camera pointed to the back seat which clearly showed her yelling and screaming, telling the cops to stop beating her, and she was the only one in the scene the whole time.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Jane Q. Public]

Not only this -- I suspect that a large part of the 90% drop in complaints has to do with the fact that it makes it a lot harder for people to lie about their interaction with a police officer.

I agree with this, BUT...

Having been a victim of what I definitely consider to be police abuse... in a situation in which video that was clearly being made somehow later "went missing", I also have to agree that this very much works both ways.

I agree with the ACLU, to the extent that I agree there should be independent oversight of these videos, and any "missing" video should be a cause for reprimand at the very LEAST.

Because I also happen to live in an area that has experienced many years of police "incidents" in which innocent people somehow end up injured or dead, but there was no independent investigation, and the internal "investigations" have almost invariably exonerated the policeman, even when no reasonable person looking at the same evidence would (or does) conclude that no wrong had been committed.

I agree that most police are probably fine people. I even have relatives who are or have been police. But the few who aren't good can cause a hell of a lot of damage, especially when there is more than one of them and they scratch each others' backs.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I generally agree.

I would also suspect that the police officers recognize that if the recording shows the first words out of their mouth sound professional and reasonably polite, then they are home free in the eyes of the jury if the suspect suddenly seems hostile. Sounding professional and polite is also likely to illicit less hostile responses.

For most police officers, this is no change in behavior. But there are surely some marginal individual officers who will build better habits when they see how it serves their personal interests.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Copid]

This is the best part of it IMO. It doesn't matter whose fault the problems were. Was it the suspect misbehaving? Was it an abusive cop? Is it a liar trying to get an officer in trouble after the fact? On the whole, it's a mix of all of them, but we don't need to know the actual mix to appreciate the fact that it seems to be better for everybody.

It's very hard for police unions to fight against something that clearly reduces their physical danger and exposure to complaints. If they save face by pretending that the cameras are making the "bad guys" behave and that it wasn't a police problem in the first place, that's fine by me.

Re:Won't do any good.

[amicusNYCL]

Fact is as long as they can turn the cameras on or off and the video is in police custody this will do almost nothing to reduce police abuse.

The results dispute your claim:

incidents involving officers using force have dropped more than half, and citizen complaints have dropped almost 90%

Re:Won't do any good.

[Anonymous Coward]

the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world -- and they're not out there looking to bust heads and turn off their cameras

Then I'll ask what I always do-

Why don't they arrest the cops who do?

A cop who doesn't 'bust heads' isn't a good cop. At best, he's neutral. A 'good' cop is one who actively deals with the bad cops. Gathers evidence against them, arrests them, and testifies against them.

Re:Won't do any good.

[TubeSteak]

I know that even mentioning this on /. gets you modded to oblivion, but the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world -- and they're not out there looking to bust heads and turn off their cameras...especially in a world where every last person on a planet has their own camera and might catch it. There's obviously a good number of well documented "bad cop" cases, but there's a lot of cops, and bad cop stories make news, because it's a big violation of our trust.

The problem isn't a small minority of bad cops, it's the alleged majority of good cops that don't immediately report and ostracize the bad cops.

You end up with a police culture that intentionally turns a blind eye to bad behavior.
That's not lawful good, no matter how you try and spin it.

Re:Won't do any good.

[jythie]

Yeah, but one side has the ability to mysteriously disappear the recordings while the other does not.

Re:Won't do any good.

[SecurityGuy]

IIRC, there's some evidence principle that if you should have records of a thing and I claim those records exonerate me, if you can't provide the records, then the court assumes they say what I claim they do. A principle like that would work well here. If you had or should have had camera footage of our interaction and I claim you punched me in the nose, if your recording is "lost" or your camera was "broken", then you punched me in the nose.

If ya don't like that, don't lose your recording and make sure your cameras work.

Re:Won't do any good.

[mythosaz]

Cops, like everyone else, work in a world that's neither black nor white.

Like racism or the acceptance of gays, I think changes behind the blue line are largely generational, and mostly vanishing -- but even so, they present complicated decisions for the people involved. I agree that looking the other way is a problem, but I also think it's something that certainly isn't like it was in my father's generation, and I'm sure it'll be better when my children are grown.

My opinion, anyway.

Re:Won't do any good.

[a whoabot]

The results show that use of force and complaints are down. How is that the "exact opposite" of his theory? Maybe most of the complaints that were prevented would have been frivolous. Maybe most of the use of force that stopped would have been appropriate: I.e., the cameras cause those interacting with the police to behave better. Maybe most of the abuse is intentional: If that's the case, then there is nothing strange about hypothesis that the police intending to be abusive would also intend to turn off the cameras when they intend to be abusive.

There's no reason to assume that he "ignores real evidence".

Re:Won't do any good.

[JackieBrown]

I was dating a female sheriff. She was laughing about how a police friend of hers would like to sneak E in his dates drinks and how one girl caught him and swapped drinks.

The fact that she found it funny, that all of his police friends knew he was date raping these women, really put a dent in my view of the police.

And the worst thing is, they would probably treat a civilian that did the same thing as a filthy monster.

Re:Won't do any good.

[rahvin112]

Ooo a stalker!

Allow me to rebut! A drop in complaints does NOT mean there has been a drop in misconduct. If that was the case there would have been drops in misconduct when cameras were installed in cars (there wasn't). This is because, as I noted, when cops do bad things the video suddenly isn't available, either because it was turned off, the tape was "lost" or the equipment was "broken" and couldn't record.

I fully support and attempted to articulate the ACLU view on this, that cameras can work, but only if precautions are taken to ensure that what I described doesn't happen. Remember that old saying about statistics. The evidence presented in the linked report does not show what you've been lead to believe it shows.

Re:Won't do any good.

[mythosaz]

You reported your friend too, right ?

Re:Won't do any good.

[sjames]

I'm fairly sure there would be physical evidence in the case of rape or murder. The cop's conduct would have little to do with it and his eye-witness testimony would be unnecessary. In the case of rape, there would also be the victim's testimony.

Re:Won't do any good.

[PRMan]

She even banged her forehead into the cage repeatedly IIRC.

Re:Won't do any good.

[PRMan]

Once it becomes commonplace and accepted, the jury will be very unlikely to take an officer's word if their camera "malfunctioned".

Re:Won't do any good.

[aardvarkjoe]

This is because, as I noted, when cops do bad things the video suddenly isn't available, either because it was turned off, the tape was "lost" or the equipment was "broken" and couldn't record.

Your argument doesn't make sense. Why would people file complaints of actual police misconduct when there's no camera available, but suddenly stop filing those complaints when the camera was there (even if the footage was "lost")?

And that also doesn't address the other statistic, a reduced number of incidents using force. What, are those incidents no longer being reported because officers can throw away the footage? That doesn't make sense either.

Re:Won't do any good.

[anagama]

A picture is worth a thousand words, but a jury will sleep through a negative inference instruction.

Re:Won't do any good.

[FuzzNugget]

the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world

Any cop who consciously neglects to report a corrupt colleague or subordinate is equally corrupt.

Are you really suggesting the "overwhelming majority" of "good people" in uniform have no idea what their colleagues and subordinates are up to and are completely unaware of their corruption? Do you have idea how minutely detailed the paperwork is required to be and how glaringly obvious it is when details are "missing" or plainly false?

Has there ever been a single situation where one corrupt jackass is tazing some innocent law-abider for "non-compliance" and one of the five other cops standing around him said, "what the fuck are you doing? You can't just torture someone into submission!" ... of course not, they readily assist him by wrenching the victim's arms to put him/her in cuffs to be dragged into the cruiser (or worse).

Until we get rid of this "protect the brotherhood above all else" attitude that's heavily ingrained in police culture, corruption will continue to reign and continually worsen.

Re:Won't do any good.

[JackieBrown]

Wow, it didn't even occur to me to report it. But you are right, I should have.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Vermonter]

I know that even mentioning this on /. gets you modded to oblivion

Looks like you got modded so far in to oblivion you looped around to +5. Impressive!

Re:Won't do any good.

[Jiro]

Why would people file complaints of actual police misconduct when there's no camera available, but suddenly stop filing those complaints when the camera was there (even if the footage was "lost")?

Some reports are real and some are fake. Cameras reduce the number of fake reports, but they don't reduce the number of real reports (since the police will "lose" the recording in a real incident). The end result is that the total number of reports of police misconduct goes down, but actual police misconduct doesn't go down.

Re:Won't do any good.

[rahvin112]

Because people routinely file complaints against cops to try to sway a judge that they were mistreated, and even just because they are mad about being caught. Those complaints are the primary reason complaints of actual misconduct never amount to anything, because they are lost in the noise and even when they aren't the cops can say it's just another bogus complaint. This is also tied to the fact that when people know they are recorded they are more polite and that applies to both sides which leads to less escalation.

The 90% reduction in complaints is the reduction in the noise and situations where both parties escalated the confrontation. What you find is that in the other 10% of cases where there is solid misconduct the video is "lost. So as I noted it's entirely possible to have a massive reduction in complaints and conversely no actual drop in misconduct.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Jack Griffin]

I'd mod you up but I've already contributed to the thread. Well played.

Re:Won't do any good.

[alexo]

The problem isn't a small minority of bad cops, it's the alleged majority of good cops that don't immediately report and ostracize the bad cops.

a.k.a. bad cops

Re:Won't do any good.

[Jack Griffin]

There's obviously a good number of well documented "bad cop" cases, but there's a lot of cops, and bad cop stories make news, because it's a big violation of our trust.

I tend not to pay much attention the news, but my problem is not so much good cop/bad cop but stupid cop. Maybe I have a nostalgia goggles, but when I grew up, cops wore blue trousers and a blue shirt and shoes, like an office worker. You'd see them walking the beat and they were friendly and said hello. Now every time I see cops they have commando boots, cargo pants and a combat vest with guns and tasers and all sorts of GI Joe paraphernalia. They have visible tattoos and wrap around sunglasses and all like look like wannabe gangster thugs. It makes it hard for me to teach my kids to respect the law when the create that image for themselves.

Re:Won't do any good.

[s.petry]

I know that even mentioning this on /. gets you modded to oblivion, but the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world -- and they're not out there looking to bust heads and turn off their cameras...

I happen to agree with this perspective, but do notice a huge difference in training Police get today compared to when I was growing up long long ago. Police today are trained to believe that everyone out there is criminal. Not all officers buy into this, but it is being taught and drilled into them. Police are also taught that they are supposed to stick together no matter what. In the 60s and 70s this happened to some degree but it was not discussed as training material and only used when questionable methods were used to catch real criminals. Unlike today where cops are filmed beating a mentally unstable homeless person to death, or shooting a def person for not obeying voice commands, and fellow officers don't speak out.

I'm not biased, and will tell you openly that the majority of people claiming police abuse on youtube are deserving of brash treatment and crossed the line. I also believe that most people joining the force have good intentions.

I think the cameras will help, but as you mention only when they can not be tampered with. I think the training officers receive should revert back to decades ago where they are grilled that their job is to defend and respect is earned even with a uniform. I believe cops that turn whistle blower should be given medals and receive praise to boot.

Re:Won't do any good.

[operagost]

He harrassed you for driving a ricer, not because it was an import. I highly doubt he's tailing every Camry.

The Dodge Charger AWD has two engines with over 300 HP.

Re:Won't do any good.

[vux984]

When he said 4 wheel drive import with large spoiler I was thinking something more along the lines of a 911 Turbo.

But then I'd like to think someone with a 911T would properly call it out as AWD not 4WD.

But yeah, the fart can muffler + outlandish spoilers and bodykits glued and screwed onto a honda etc are pretty horrific. And anyone who drives one of those probably merits the increased police scrutiny.

But in any case 'import' isn't just asian-fart-boxes. It covers the european imports as well including the exotics.

Re:Won't do any good.

[ganjadude]

I assumed that he was talking about a STI or an EVO in reality but yeah I get what you are saying

Re:Won't do any good.

[Rich0]

Agreed. There is already precedence - if a corporation destroys documents sought during an investigation the court will treat those documents as if they were incriminating. Video should be no different - absence of video on its face should be sufficient to exclude any testimony by the officer or evidence collected by them.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the day the first rapist or murderer discovers the camera really was broken - at which point the media will rally against this 'loophole' that allows serious criminals to 'get off on a technicality' and there will be immense public pressure to undo it.

Isn't it better to let go a criminal than to condemn an innocent? This is what is important.

Re:Won't do any good.

[SuricouRaven]

In theory, yes. In practice, people are driven by hate, fear and a craving to inflict suffering upon those who wrong the community. They will say that would rather let a criminal go free than condemn an innocent - but if the criminal has committed a sufficiently loathsome crime (Child sexual abuse leads the list, followed by run-of-the-mill rape and murder) then their actions show they would rather convict many innocents than allow one criminal their freedom - and sometimes it's hard to hold them back from wanting to see the criminal hung, drawn and quartered and their mutilated corpse paraded through the streets.

Re:Won't do any good.

[mi]

They want the video for convictions, but they will make damn sure the video is lost or the camera is off when they go to beat the shit out of some innocent person.

Same is true for all evidence.

video should be stored by an independent third party

This is a possible solution, yes, to storage of all evidence. That said, I wonder, who would that reliable third party be — and what will prevent them from occasionally colluding with cops the same way, cops may already collude with each other.

Maybe, electronic evidence (including these videos) — that's so easily duplicated — can be stored in multiple places. Then we'll just need to ensure, the video-stream is continuously uploaded — even while the officer is still out there. And, of course, the cameras need to be proven against tampering and able to communicate wirelessly with all those multiple locations (or, at least, the cruiser) — even if there happens to be a piece of foil in there.

Pretty quick it becomes a very expensive device — if you can make it at all...

Re:Won't do any good.

[ColdSam]

This kind of tortured reasoning and hyperbole really diminishes what could have been a valid and informed complaint against the policy. It is absurd to claim that this will not reduce police misconduct without introducing some new causative factors.

Of course there will still be some police misconduct. Some officers will fail to turn on their cameras and some videos will mysteriously disappear. But when that happens it will take some combination of premeditation and conspiracy - which makes it far easier to detect patterns and account for than previously. At the very least, in those cases of abuse it will also make it far more likely that the victim will not suffer further penalty, by being falsely convicted.

Re:Won't do any good.

[drkim]

She even banged her forehead into the cage repeatedly IIRC.

She was building her injury lawsuit...

Re:Won't do any good.

[chronoglass]

I tend not to pay much attention the news, but my problem is not so much good cop/bad cop but stupid cop. Maybe I have a nostalgia goggles, but when I grew up, cops wore blue trousers and a blue shirt and shoes, like an office worker. You'd see them walking the beat and they were friendly and said hello. Now every time I see cops they have commando boots, cargo pants and a combat vest with guns and tasers and all sorts of GI Joe paraphernalia. They have visible tattoos and wrap around sunglasses and all like look like wannabe gangster thugs. It makes it hard for me to teach my kids to respect the law when the create that image for themselves.

You know what, thank you.
I have a good amount of family that are LEO's and am generally quick to defend officers in general in the situations where force is used if at all possible. It's just difficult to go to work for 9 hours a day on alert for someone to make a movement that says, " bang your dead" before you are actually.. you know.. dead.

This however is a perspective that hadn't crossed my mind. There has been a shift away from the uniformed protector of the peace, and towards a tactical dress down military police look. This adds a level of intimidation to any potential interaction that could certainly add to the stress of it and turn it down the road of conflict.

I do know that the tactical gear is much better in a chase or apprehend situation, but that is it. The perception of preparation for every situation to be a high stress situation could aid in a situation becoming a high stress one.. there has to be a middle ground on this, and I wonder if there have been any studies done around this shift..

Re:Won't do any good.

[Applehu Akbar]

Yet when we film the police, it makes them more jerkish. Why is that? If we live in a surveillance society, why don't we have a countervailing right to surveill back? If there is an accusation of excess in police interactions, footage from both sides could be the best evidence of what actually happened.

Re:Won't do any good.

[fafalone]

Comments like that tend to get modded down because they're WRONG. Most cops are NOT good people. First off the notion that cops become cops to bring flowers and sunshine to the world is incredibly naive. At *best*, they're there to catch 'bad guys', not help their community. But motives aren't really important, actions are. All cops arrest and support obtaining criminal convictions for victimless, consensual acts at some point in their career. People like to say 'well, that's the law'... that's no different than 'just following orders'. It's wrong, period.
Even if you disagree with that point, you need to consider that while not all cops perpetrate illegal acts or civil rights violations, you better believe they know at least one other officer who has, and kept their mouth shut. Covering up for someone else's abuse makes you a bad person.

These cameras need to be on every officer, always rolling, and most important: if the camera "breaks" or the footage is "lost", the version of events given by the civilian should be considered more credible.

Re:Won't do any good.

[luis_a_espinal]

Fact is as long as they can turn the cameras on or off and the video is in police custody this will do almost nothing to reduce police abuse.

You are wrong. See, a significant number of cases involving police abuse are based on cops' allegations that the victim is/was a perp and that they acted in self-defense to explain why the victim/perp was beaten to a pulp or whatever. Now it will be harder for them to claim they acted in self-defense or that the person was acting irrationally or disobeying orders while claiming "ooops my camera was broken, take my word for it."

Also, the rate at which cameras "get broken" will become public record. A high incident of "broken video recorders" will raise eyebrows and closer scrutiny (specially if a strong correlation is found between those incidents and citizen's complains of abuse.)

It is not perfect. No solution is. And sure there will be ways corrupt/abuse cops will try to (and succeed) circumvent the system. But it will make such acts harder to commit. Your assertion that this will do little to nothing is erroneous.

Re:Won't do any good.

[mrchaotica]

Americans aren't smart enough to make a 300 horsepower four wheel drive small car....

The Cadillac ATS V6 AWD fits that description (but your Suburu or Mitsubishi is almost certainly still better and/or cheaper, of course).

Re:Won't do any good.

[Sardaukar86]

Wow, it didn't even occur to me to report it. But you are right, I should have.

I absolutely don't blame you for not reporting it (that's a pretty goddamned nasty thing to do to a friend after all) but I don't envy you your contemplative time alone, considering the high likelihood of this officer having made a number of new victims since you heard the sheriff's anecdote.

That said, I imagine it's a similar situation for the cops. Nobody wants to be the arsehole who rats out their workmates .. so the date-rapes continue, as does the police brutality.

Officer cams that can only be lawfully disabled during a shift for restroom breaks (for example) would go a long way to helping clean this situation up, but only if the footage is well outside the Police's control. I'm fed up to the back teeth with the foxes running the henhouse when it comes to police conduct.

Re:Won't do any good.

[ShakaUVM]

>It will never happen, but if a law was passed that when the video is unavailable, the citizen's report is presumed to be true and complete, I'll bet those cameras would suddenly get a lot more reliable.

Indeed. This is the missing key ingredient.

I once got pulled over for speeding while driving doing the speed limit. I saw the cop coming down the road toward me, and had slowed down by the time he'd u-turned and pulled up behind me to tail me. I'd been speeding before, but this wasn't what he claimed in court - he said I was doing 78 (written statement) 87 (oral statement) while tailing me on the I-5.

I'd requested the camera footage of the event, but it mysteriously wasn't available to me.

So it was just the cop's word against mine, and the court will side with a cop every time, even though there was a serious discrepancy between his written and oral statement, and his video footage wasn't provided to me.

If the law stated that the presumption would go the other way (favoring the citizen over the cop) when video evidence disappears, it would eliminate the easiest source of police abuse of these tools.

Re:Won't do any good.

[quantaman]

the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world

Any cop who consciously neglects to report a corrupt colleague or subordinate is equally corrupt

I wouldn't go that far. Humans unfortunately tend to be enablers by default, if a colleague does something wrong we tend to defend them, if the culture is bad enough we may even assist them.

I'm not sure cops are particularly worse in this regard. There's certainly a few extra sociopaths and people with other issues who get in there specifically to abuse their power, and there seems to be a slightly more blue collar vibe that doesn't help, but for the most part I think cops are ordinary people who cut corners just like everyone else.

The problem is they're doing a job where you can't really afford to cut corners.

Re:Won't do any good.

[anagama]

You assume there is no other evidence.

I'm always amazed at how much faith slashdotters put into simple stratagems that might be used at trial. Reality is very messy.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Frobnicator]

A lot of the good (from the police perspective) is that people don't act like jerks when they're clearly being filmed. Amazingly you're less likely to be a dick to cops when the camera is on you. In-car cameras turn on and off automatically when they have the lights and sirens on. Pull a guy over, and video gets shot - period. Wearables don't have that yet, but we'll get there.

That was in fact the main point of the ACLU's objection (RTFA for details), citing that the law did not require the devices be turned on, did not specify that citizens could access the recordings, and did not specify data retention policies.

In TFA the ACLU cited several actual court cases where cameras were running, and then either mysteriously malfunctioned or were intentionally turned off by police or where the footage was "lost", and the judge ruled in favor of the cops because of a lack of evidence and they believed the officer story.

The bill only said police had to carry the cameras. I'm certain the good cops would have left them recording and done all they should. Unfortunately the law allows bad cops to keep turning off the cameras during the beatings, allows bad cops to retroactively edit and delete the video, and allows departments to keep the video secret unless government prosecutors review the recording and decide it contains potentially exculpatory evidence. The ACLU wants mandatory recording, mandatory citizen access for their interaction with police, and mandatory retention policies.

That avoids the "oops, I accidentally turned it off while you were beaten", and the "you need a full lawsuit to get access to the clips, assuming we still have them [wink]", and officers deleting the clips of the beatings so they can claim malfunction later. These are standard specification requirements in data systems, so the fact that the three were missing from the bill was quite suspicious.

(Basically bad cops and prosecutors could continue to use the law against people. If these prosecutors review the video and believe it doesn't meet the exculpatory rules the current law says they don't need to hand it over to defense, although fortunately more judges are starting to rule this violates due process, telling cops and prosecutors to hand over EVRYTHING instead of just LEO-submitted evidence and LEO-censored exculpatory material.)

Re:Won't do any good.

[Frobnicator]

Agreed. There is already precedence - if a corporation destroys documents sought during an investigation the court will treat those documents as if they were incriminating. Video should be no different - absence of video on its face should be sufficient to exclude any testimony by the officer or evidence collected by them.

Quite true in theory.

In practice, bad cops already delete video, edit video, and turn off cameras during incidents. With no evidence of the abuse and the bad cops lying about it, judges rule in the officer's favor. See TFA for several court cases where this was demonstrated, including one where multiple officers turned off their cameras when the suspect was making a fuss, then they all turned them back on and the suspect was seriously injured and had supposedly resisted and injured himself. Judges still sided with the cops.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Frobnicator]

Once it becomes commonplace and accepted, the jury will be very unlikely to take an officer's word if their camera "malfunctioned".

That is a good thing.

We live in an era where video is cheap and easy. Yet cops still record videos of 'interviews' with suspects, and then if nothing interesting happened request written transcripts and delete the video, or if there was something interesting get transcripts of everything and delete everything except keep the few interest bits that support their views.

Yes, it is a good thing. Pics or it didn't happen when the police are making accusations, with pics or it DID happen when accusations are leveled against the police.

Re:Won't do any good.

[matthewv789]

the majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world

So are the majority of "criminals".

Re:Won't do any good.

[Pubstar]

Both of which happen to come stock with a large wing.

Re:Won't do any good.

[matthewv789]

Maybe, but a lot is probably the police thinking twice and reserving the situations where they "lose the footage" for rare occasions. They can still abuse it, sure, but it's not worth abusing it most of the time, it looks better and is easier to just do what they're supposed to in most cases. Like if they have to explain why the footage is missing, that's awkward, there are questions. The questions might not leave the department, but it's still a pain to even be asked.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Pubstar]

He said small car, not a small boat.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Rich0]

Oh, sure, I don't question that this is how it actually works today. I'm saying that it SHOULDN'T work that way. The standard should really be that we video everything, and if there is no tape the defendant walks. Since that would effectively mean that anybody could shoot a cop in public and be acquitted if their camera was off, I suspect that would encourage keeping the cameras rolling.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Pubstar]

If you actually read what he wrote, it limits the car choices to Cellica GT-4 All-Trac (extremely rare, so I doubt it), Galant VR-4 (extremely rare), GTO/3000GT VR-4 (rare again), Lancer Evo, WRX, or (and I hope this isn't the case) an Eclipse.

Re:Won't do any good.

[ffflala]

Apparently there is an increasing trend of the intersection of steroid workout junkies and cop culture. I think it would go a long way to addressing some current trends in overly aggressive cop abuse if there were similar, national prohibitions against active duty officers using performance-enhancing substances, with rules and testing schemes similar to those used in various sports.

Basically my vote for the problem cops goes to the 'roid rage cops.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Poppageorgio]

I work in IT for a PD, and we have body worn cameras that are locked into an upload, with no way for the officer to delete what's on the camera. That was one of the main reasons for purchasing said camera.

Re:Won't do any good.

[KingOfBLASH]

Which is why citizens should start taking their own videos. You film me, i'll film you, and when we go to court well make sure the tapes agree

Re:Won't do any good.

[rtb61]

The idea that the police can simply delete what they don't like or switch of the device when ever they feel like it, is a very false premise in terms of the law. Lost evidence immediately creates doubts about the veracity of statements against those who lost or purposefully failed to gather evidence. As the public and hence juries becomes more aware of the requirement of police officer to record all their policing interactions with the public they will demand that evidence, when police fail to submit it for what ever reason, it will place great suspicion on their actions and create the doubt necessary to break their prosecutions.

Not that bringing up these questions is not important, it is very important in the creation of successful secure devices that will protect the public whilst providing evidence of crimes. It will also help with the recording of crime scenes ie multiple view points. Storage of data should reflect statute of limitations for the crimes applicable, keeping in mind it does not need to be 28 frames a second, lower speed higher resolution images would be preferable.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Imrik]

Your argument only works if police are required to use the device and the case goes to a jury. If they aren't required to use it there's no reason why people should expect there to be a recording. Without the recording, there's a good chance the case will be dismissed for lack of evidence as judges are prone to trusting the word of cops.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Frobnicator]

The idea that the police can simply delete what they don't like or switch of the device when ever they feel like it, is a very false premise in terms of the law. Lost evidence immediately creates doubts about the veracity of statements against those who lost or purposefully failed to gather evidence.

You obviously didn't read the articles. :-)

Simply put, right now today all those bad things are happening. That is what the ACLU was objecting to.

They provided a nice list of actual court cases where officers turned of their cameras on a complaining suspect, and turned them on to a beaten and bloody suspect who managed to injure themselves while resisting arrest.

They provided a nice list of actual court cases where officers submitted evidence of edited films rather than complete unedited films, conveniently omitting the bad things the cop did.

And just look back in the news last month, two cops who had badly beaten a motorist after crashing into him and then working with prosecutors to demand a severe plea deal rather than decades in prison, only to have some cops anonymously post their own dashboard cam showing the police flagrantly breaking the law. The mayor decries that the cops who "leaked" the evidence of corruption and police brutality were "rats", thereby reinforcing the absolute need for the law the ACLU is speaking for.

Specifically, the requirements are the officers MUST record the interactions, the recordings MUST be made available to those involved without editing or deletion, and there MUST be data retention standards to prevent officers from erasing the data too soon ("Police beating yesterday? Sorry, that file was already deleted") or keeping them indefinitely.

Without that kind of law firmly in place, missing video is simply non-evidence; "sorry, my dashboard camera wasn't running" is a valid excuse. Only with that law in place does the missing police video become something judges and juries can rely on.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Frobnicator]

Which is why citizens should start taking their own videos. You film me, i'll film you, and when we go to court well make sure the tapes agree

Amen!

This is what so seriously bothers me about those who pronounce "glasshole" and disagree with individuals recording everything. The ones with the cameras have the power. Police have cameras to provide evidence in their favor. Businesses have cameras to provide evidence in their favor. Somehow individuals should not have that power.

We are rapidly approaching the day of ubiquitous cameras. When people can say "here are 37 different viewpoints of the event" it will radically transform this type of interaction. We can see the suspect commit the crime, if applicable. We can see the cop beat the suspect repeatedly, if applicable. More likely we can see both the suspect being combative and the officer escalating the situation with force. Whatever it is, ubiquitous cameras mean we get many viewpoints and the story can be told without the he-said/she-said problems we have today. Getting there will be bumpy, but I hope we get there quickly.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Jane Q. Public]

"The idea that the police can simply delete what they don't like or switch of the device when ever they feel like it, is a very false premise in terms of the law. Lost evidence immediately creates doubts about the veracity of statements against those who lost or purposefully failed to gather evidence."

Sorry, but no. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In my case, "There is no video. There never was." Even though recording under those circumstances was routine practice, and the red light on the video camera was on. And they had no explanation as to why they "just didn't record" that particular time. There just "was never a recording" and the judge accepted that.

This would change if they were required to record everything, every time, and absence of recording caused real problems for them. That's why "personal" recorders for police are important: even if one video "went missing", there would be others. Absence of more than one at any given time is suspicious, indeed.

One way to ensure that videos are taken would be to presume in favor of the plaintiff if complaints are brought against police and they "lost" the video. I know that will sound extreme to some people, and I admit it goes a bit far to make a general rule like that. I am a big fan of the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. But still, something must be done to ensure accountability. I speak again as someone who has lived in an area where it is easy to demonstrate there have been problems with the police.

Re:Won't do any good.

[Jane Q. Public]

Speaking as someone who experienced it, I say: "Amen."

Re: Won't do any good.

[Poppageorgio]

Happened 2 years ago in my city. Regular traffic stop, guy just steps out with an AR15 and unloads on the cop car.

Re:Won't do any good.

[rtb61]

It has to go to trial not to prosecute law enforcement but so law enforcement can justify it's actions with false claims and attempt to force wrongful prosecution. Hence it is a prosecution of the victim that forces the trial to justify the criminal activity of law enforcement. When the prosecution fails, the victim should then be entitled to prosecute law enforcement as in the eyes of the court there was no legal justification for their actions. This reflects exactly the same kind of activity the FBI likes to get into when after achieving a successful court case against a person who pleaded not guilty and gave what the court ended up defining as false evidence, go on to prosecute them for perjury. Hence the opposite is fair, when the prosecution fails to prove guilt are they not now guilty of perjury et al.

Re:Won't do any good.

[rtb61]

Well, it would certainly appear that you also have a very significant problem with your courts, perhaps having popularity contests to elect judges wasn't the brightest idea after all. Without doubt the US justice system has systematic problems throughout the whole system with justice not so much being blind as being blindly greedy. Trying to eliminate the corruption with out prosecuting those causing the problems, with out recruiting more of the same kind, will just leave you chasing your own tail. It is the management of your systems of justice that is a severe fault.

Re:Won't do any good.

[phorm]

Lawyer's claim: Dang, that's some good video-editing software they've got!

Re:Broken camera

[GerryGilmore]

Look, there are always going to be abuses of ANY system, but anything that helps raise the bar of accountability is inherently a Good Thing(TM) so please stop the whining about how it's not totally perfect.

It's all fun and games until the NSA gets involved

[calzones]

Just wait, til the cops start uploading all their footage to a central server for the NSA to add to its collection so they can start cataloging every social interaction that cops see while on their beat. Someone who's face matches a potential subject of interest in a database will get flagged when they show up on the footage and the NSA will then start tracking them based on geolocation data in the footage.

Just try to do the same

[Opportunist]

Run around and point a video cam at a cop.

Or ... better don't.

Re:Just try to do the same

[Trax3001BBS]

Run around and point a video cam at a cop.

Or ... better don't.

First thing I thought of was the regulations being put on Google Glasses and they haven't even been publicly released yet.

It's pertinent now to wear a video device ones self. Look at Russia and the car cams they apparently require due to the traffic situations-accidents they can be involved in.

Re:Just try to do the same

[Toad-san]

Actually, a lot of laws are being changed to permit just this. And a lot of police departments, officials, etc. are losing their jobs when they interfere with this.

It's not perfect, not by a long shot, but it IS getting better. And a good thing too, IMHO.

Prediction

[letherial]

I predict that these 'cameras' will have a higher then normal fail rate.

Does it record sound?

[TheRealMindChild]

Do these record sound as well? How legal is this in an all party state, where everyone has to consent to being recorded and a suspect refuses?

Re:Does it record sound?

[asylumx]

Most police already wear "body recorders" which capture anything audible while on duty.

Re:Does it record sound?

[amicusNYCL]

If I really want to tell the cops to shut off all of their cameras, I'm sure they will be happy to oblige.

Re:Does it record sound?

[TheRealMindChild]

This is simply not correct, which is why I asked the question. http://www.publicopiniononline.com/opinion/ci_6300968

Re:Does it record sound?

[EvilSS]

Do these record sound as well? How legal is this in an all party state, where everyone has to consent to being recorded and a suspect refuses?

Those are all state laws and most, if not all, have exceptions for law enforcement in the performance of their jobs. Warrants are required in certain circumstances but that is usually not covered by these laws (that falls under federal/constitutional law). So the exception essentially voids the 2-party rule for law enforcement.

Whoops...

[Ramley]

I can already hear the excuses when the footage is "lost" over the one controversy an officer might have. Or (as previously mentioned), the camera magically shut itself off.

Whoops

Re:Whoops...

[DaveV1.0]

And, how upset do you get when there is creative editing of "bystander" video when the unedited version of the footage comes out?

Re:Whoops...

[EvilSS]

I can already hear the excuses when the footage is "lost" over the one controversy an officer might have. Or (as previously mentioned), the camera magically shut itself off.

Then that should be held against the officer when it comes to trial. The system should also have an audit log (that can't be erased) to show who erased what and when.

Re:Broken camera

[lgw]

This! Every system can be defeated, but each new system that has to be defeated is good. Plus, for anything serious more than one cop will be there, and stories about "accidental damage to devices" become even less likely to fly when it coincidentally affects all 6 officers who responded to the same incident, and no one else that day.

Re:Broken camera

[mythosaz]

The accused should be informed that they are being recorded or it can't be used against them in a criminal proceeding (rights against self-incrimination)

IANAL, but it'll be like any other police recording. Spontaneous admissions will likely still be admissible, but questioning would likely be subject to Miranda rules.

*shrug*

Re:Broken camera

[spacepimp]

I smell what you're steppin in. I'd like to make certain the data is only accessible for a particular instance or violation. It shouldn't be allowed to be used for mass population facial recognition, or NSA data grabs.

Incidents dropped by 50%, I wonder why?

[Jaime2]

So, when cops have cameras, reported incidents of police using force dropped by half. I believe that means that 50% of uses of force were unwarranted or unnecessary, otherwise why would they have stopped?

This sound like pretty clear evidence that police think they can get away with bending the law as long as no one (except the victim) sees them.

Re:Incidents dropped by 50%, I wonder why?

[blueg3]

This sound like pretty clear evidence that police think they can get away with bending the law as long as no one (except the victim) sees them.

This is the LAPD we're talking about. I think that fact was already pretty well-known.

Re:Incidents dropped by 50%, I wonder why?

[Copid]

Either that or people see cameras on them and are less likely to run or resist arrest. But most likely a mixture of the two. I'm sure there's a lot of misbehavior on both sides when the cameras are off. It looks like the cameras are a big win for everybody.

Re:Incidents dropped by 50%, I wonder why?

[MozeeToby]

Your explanation is a possible one, but it is not the only one.

A) The general public would know about the initiative. Being recorded works both ways, it makes everyone think about their actions more, cops and civilians alike.
B) It's possible that the video encourages cops to be more polite and less aggressive because they know the video has their back if something gets out of hand.
C) It's possible that the video encourages cops to be more polite and less aggressive because they are more likely to get in trouble for it if they step out of line.

Personally, if I had to guess, I'd bet that most of the change comes from B, though indirectly. I'd be willing to pay money that the first few days with the camera officers were extremely self conscious about their actions, less aggressive and more polite in their interactions. I'm guessing the cops saw how much easier and safer their jobs can be by being less aggressive and confrontational.

Re:Incidents dropped by 50%, I wonder why?

[Megane]

You forgot D) it's possible that some or many of the reports of excessive force were bullshit, and this weeds out false accusations.

Re:Incidents dropped by 50%, I wonder why?

[ganjadude]

on the other hand, it could also mean that gang members can no longer put in complaints against the cops for abuse for putting them to the ground when they run from them?

Dont take this to mean I am blindly siding with the cops, but if the criminals no they are on tape, they cant try and claim brutality when none exists, This is just one of the reasons besides cops not beating innocent people

Re:Incidents dropped by 50%, I wonder why?

[MozeeToby]

The 50% drop was self reported by the officers. In other words, the officers themselves self reported using force around half as often as before. Reports of abusive cops drops 90% though, so your point still stands, just not in the context of this particular thread.

Re:Incidents dropped by 50%, I wonder why?

[fafalone]

I see you've had very limited interaction with the police, and certainly not outside of a majority white middle to upper class environment. If anything it would be underreported out of fear of retaliation.

Forget when they get back

[MitchDev]

It should be streaming to a central, offsite server where the images and sound can be saved, not deleted at the cop's convenience. The footage should be available to citizens and police alike.

Intentional vs. accidental obscuring the image would have to be on a case by case basis, but hopefully the sounds recording would still provide enough cues and clues...

Re:Forget when they get back

[PRMan]

I worked with police for a while. Trust me, you do NOT want to see most of the crap that they have to deal with. Available to a public watchdog panel? Fine. Available to the public at large? I really don't think you want to see severed heads or murdered, raped teenagers' dead nude bodies.

Re:Forget when they get back

[MitchDev]

I don't mean for broadcast or the like, but for review when a potential lawsuit or harassment claim pops up.

Re:Broken camera

[MitchDev]

That would block any and all security videotapes from being used, since at the time of the crime being commited, the crooks haven't been arrested and Miranda-ized for them yet....

The ACLU really is obstructionist, aren't they?

[dave562]

I used to think that the ACLU was a force for good, and they might be. But they do not know when to quit, or compromise on anything. Here we are finally getting accountability for law enforcement, and now they want to stop the program?

I wonder if anyone told them that nothing is perfect and life is all about compromises.

Re:The ACLU really is obstructionist, aren't they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's put this in a different light to show you why the ACLU took this position. You are a programmer writing the ruleset to be used to prioritize some set of functions in your project. Once you are finished, you send your ruleset (a bill to be voted on) to committee for peer review and feed back. Maybe call it the "beta" version of your ruleset.

The ACLU(quality control staff) is basically telling the lawmakers(you, the grunt programmer) that while this bill(ruleset) they want to pass has the general idea, there are a number of glaring holes that will be exploited to cause predictable and unpredictable outcomes. Instead of just passing your swiss cheese ruleset along to later be patched up, the ACLU is saying to send it back to be done correctly.

So really, they are trying to help implement a good idea in a positive fashion, as opposed to letting people take a good idea and muck it up with potential failure.

Re:The ACLU really is obstructionist, aren't they?

[FrozenGeek]

Well, if you look at their name, it's obvious that they don't have A CLU.

Re:The ACLU really is obstructionist, aren't they?

[Frobnicator]

I used to think that the ACLU was a force for good, and they might be. But they do not know when to quit, or compromise on anything. Here we are finally getting accountability for law enforcement, and now they want to stop the program?

Obviously you didn't RTFA.

The ACLU complaint was that while the law requires LEOs to carry the cameras, it does not mandate that they actually record anything, it does not mandate that the recordings be made available to the citizens who were arrested, interviewed, or interacted with, and it doesn't specify a data retention policy.

The ACLU agreed that cameras are good. They want mandatory recordings rather than optional recordings. They want the complete, unedited recording to be available to the citizens involved. And they want a data retention policy so officers cannot delete the material the same day, nor can they keep it indefinitely.

The ACLU's 2-page comment (see the article) cited specific cases where these were problems. One had multiple officers turn cameras off when a citizen didn't cooperate, then they turned the cameras back on to reveal a citizen who was badly injured, with the official report being they had injured themselves while resisting arrest. Also it cites accounts where officers clearly edited footage by removing potentially incriminating bits, and of officers deleting the recordings the same day rather than filing them as part of the reports of their associated incidents.

Released footage..

[sqorbit]

So how often will it happen that higher profile arrests of public figures has the tape released to the media or in the right circumstance (or cost) for the right person (government official) the video isn't available?

good for the goose?

[roc97007]

I wonder how cops will react to citizens having cameras on their persons during altercations with cops? In theory it should be exactly the same thing, but in practice, citizens trying to (legally) film cops during such interactions have not gone well for the citizen.

Re:good for the goose?

[PRMan]

If the cops are already filming, then they shouldn't care nearly as much.

Re:good for the goose?

[roc97007]

Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that if a cop commits a crime during an altercation, that the video won't somehow get lost?

Re:good for the goose?

[roc97007]

I wonder how often something like this happens and we never hear about it, because the "second dash cam video" doesn't exist or never comes to light.

The ACLU

[jklovanc]

Is the only things the ACLU can say is "Yes" or "No"? Instead of saying "I respectfully urge you to please vote “no” on this legislation" perhaps say something like "I respectfully ask you to amend the legislation as follows". It is easy to point at legislation and say "bad bill" but it is much more difficult, and productive, to say how the bill can be fixed. They make some oblique suggestions but they are not set out so that the can be easily added to the bill. For example, one of their issues is retention length but they never states how long they consider optimal. If the bill was amended to have a retention time there is a good chance that the ACLU would object because it is too long or too short. Become part of the process instead of an obstructionist.

Re:The ACLU

[blueg3]

They are part of the process. They're a pretty influential lobbying organization.

Re:The ACLU

[jklovanc]

Being part of the process is much more than "Wrong, try again". The ACLU has some very bright people. How about coming up with solutions rather that problems.

Re:The ACLU

[blueg3]

"Yes" and "no" are the only ways you get to vote on a bill. They point out quite clearly what needs to be addressed in the bill in order for it to be acceptable to them. They also actively lobby to suggest new legislation and amend in-process legislation. You don't see that here, because that's not what this story is about, because this bill is up for vote.

Re:The ACLU

[jklovanc]

"Yes" and "no" are the only ways you get to vote on a bill.

Before a bill is voted on there is a discussion phase where amendments can be introduced. The ACLU has not suggested any concrete amendments.

You don't see that here, because that's not what this story is about,

I referenced and read the ACLU's letter on this subject.

They point out quite clearly what needs to be addressed

But they do not state clearly how they would like it to be addressed. That is the problem. Without a solid solution all they are doing is pointing out problems and not really helping. What is stopping the ACLU from making concrete amendment suggestions?

"and is typically retained for one to three months

[Chris Mattern]

Unless of course it shows something that could get the department sued, in which case there will be a "computer error" and the video will be lost.

Video recordings may save your life

[Steve Blake]

Requiring law enforcement to record their interactions with you may save your life someday. See http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2014/02/25/waltham-murders-boston-marathon/

Re:Broken camera

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Also most incidents of bad behavior start off with police officers who walk in ambiguous situations with the initial intention to behave professionally (e.g. the officers who beat up Rodney King were not intending to lose control of their emotions and the situation when the encounter started). Those police officers will not turn off their cameras.

Nonsense

[Uberbah]

A lot of the good (from the police perspective) is that people don't act like jerks when they're clearly being filmed.

Everyone knows that cops have had video cameras mounted in their cars, for decades. Neat how you skipped the parts of the summary talking about how police violence and complaints have dropped dramatically where these cameras have been used.

Almost like it's the cops who are the real jerks here. Interesting.

but the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world -- and they're not out there looking to bust heads and turn off their cameras...especially in a world where every last person on a planet has their own camera and might catch it

The problem with the "aww, it's just a few bad apples" canard is that one bad one rots the whole barrel. When all your "good cops" are willing to commit perjury to cover up for the "bad apples", there are no good cops.

Re:Nonsense

[mythosaz]

I'll ignore your "all cops are perjurers" tirade.

As to the rest:

A lot of the good (from the police perspective) is that people don't act like jerks when they're clearly being filmed.

Everyone knows that cops have had video cameras mounted in their cars, for decades. Neat how you skipped the parts of the summary talking about how police violence and complaints have dropped dramatically where these cameras have been used.

Almost like it's the cops who are the real jerks here. Interesting.

It's almost like both sides benefit from there being a camera on them.

Cameras help.

Which side of the confrontation is the problem is a matter for (people like you) to debate.

Re:Nonsense

[Uberbah]

I'll ignore your "all cops are perjurers" tirade.

You mean you're going to ignore anything that interferes with your worship of authority. When cops dare to actually enforce the law against fellow cops, they get stalked and harassed.

It's almost like both sides benefit from there being a camera on them.

It's almost like you don't know that Cops has been on the air for 25 years. Whether the person is innocent and being hassled by power tripping cops, or an actual "bad guy" worrying about going to jail for the meth stashed in his trunk, the very last thing on their minds is whether or not they're on video.

Re:Nonsense

[mythosaz]

It's almost like both sides benefit from there being a camera on them.

It's almost like you don't know that Cops has been on the air for 25 years. Whether the person is innocent and being hassled by power tripping cops, or an actual "bad guy" worrying about going to jail for the meth stashed in his trunk, the very last thing on their minds is whether or not they're on video.

As best as I can tell from watching Cops these last 25 years, most of the people on cops are either (a) drunk, or (b) drunk.

Re:Nonsense

[blueg3]

It's almost like you don't know that Cops has been on the air for 25 years.

You know that's a TV show, where they edit out all the interactions that are boring, right?

Re:Nonsense

[drkim]

It's almost like both sides benefit from there being a camera on them.

It's almost like you don't know that Cops has been on the air for 25 years. Whether the person is innocent and being hassled by power tripping cops, or an actual "bad guy" worrying about going to jail for the meth stashed in his trunk, the very last thing on their minds is whether or not they're on video.

As best as I can tell from watching Cops these last 25 years, most of the people on cops are either (a) drunk, or (b) drunk.

or (c) on drugs.

Re:Nonsense

[Uberbah]

You know that does nothing to change my point, right? There were no boring parts cut out where the person being detained asked if he was on video, because tunnel vision in response to stress is a natural human reaction. 100% of your attention is going to be focused on the hyperagressive, armed individual in front of you, not on the camera in his squad car.

Unconstitutional in WA state without a warrant

[WillAffleckUW]

Sorry, but our state constitution in Washington State is pretty darned clear on that.

You can't record people without a warrant. Or their express permission.

That includes you Google Glassholes.

Re:Unconstitutional in WA state without a warrant

[Enfixed]

Mark my words, your state constitution will be changed or overruled shortly. ;)

Re:Unconstitutional in WA state without a warrant

[WillAffleckUW]

Mark my words, your state constitution will be changed or overruled shortly. ;)

They tried that before.

SCOTUS upheld our rights.

Re:Broken camera

[CohibaVancouver]

so please stop the whining about how it's not totally perfect

You must be new here.

This is Slashdot, where perfect is the enemy of good, and the edge use-case wins, EVERY time.

fascist apologist

[Uberbah]

I suspect you should have a good chat with Kelly Thomas and revise your storyline. Or read up on LEO departments stealing millions from people not convicted of any crime via "asset forfeiture". Or how hundreds of thousands of mostly black and brown men are stopped in NYC without probable suspicion under "stop and frisk".

Re:fascist apologist

[mythosaz]

Texas stealing from motorists along I-10, and NYC's stop-and-violate are, undeniably, bullshit - and that comes from a guy living in Arizona :)

...but it doesn't mean that cameras on cops probably isn't a good idea.

Heck, it might even shed light on how bullshit your other scenarios are.

Re:fascist apologist

[aardvarkjoe]

I suspect you should have a good chat with Kelly Thomas and revise your storyline.

What storyline -- that sometimes people lie about what police do? Do you seriously believe that doesn't happen? And anyone who believes it does is a fascist?

Re:fascist apologist

[mythosaz]

Any support for police on /. is you being part of the corrupt system, maaaan.

It's like arguing with creationists who shout Piltdown Man! Piltdown Man! to explain why all science is bullshit, and the earth is 6,000 years old.

Re:fascist apologist

[Uberbah]

Who do you guys even think you're kidding here? When was the last time you heard of a LEO held in contempt of court for perjury or falsifying evidence, much less charged by a DA, much less convicted? The cops that murdered Kelly Thomas by bashing his head in as he screamed for help from his father were just let off scott free. You have to have something as egregious as a cop shooting a handcuffed man lying facedown on the pavement, on fucking video, before they serve time. And even then, they serve less time than a football player who shot himself in the leg.

So again, who do you even think you're kidding here, Slick? Try and tell us with a straight face that if you give a group of people a huge amount of authority, with next to zero accountability, that their authority wont be abused on a constant basis.

Re:fascist apologist

[blueg3]

held in contempt of court

That's not the route they seem to usually go.

much less charged by a DA

In national-level news (i.e., in a serious or well-publicized case), a couple of weeks ago.

much less convicted

About a month ago (same caveat as above).

Re:fascist apologist

[drkim]

...if you give a group of people a huge amount of authority, with next to zero accountability...

Well, that 'accountability' is what this video system is designed to provide. At least it's a step in the right direction.

Re:fascist apologist

[Applehu Akbar]

Actually, the Tenaha TX scandal resulted in an admission of guilt, a mountain of stolen personal assets, a big settlement and a change in the town's police procedures, but the cops involved were quietly eased into other jobs without serving the five consecutive life sentences that would have been morally justified by their actions.

Details: https://www.aclu.org/blog/crim...

Re:fascist apologist

[shentino]

Not to mention that abuse of police power is a federal offense.

Re:fascist apologist

[Uberbah]

That makes you a repeater of racist zombie lies. Black men use drugs at the same rate as white women, yet are 40 times as likely to go to prison for it.

Re:fascist apologist

[Uberbah]

And every month there's a Powerball winner. Doesn't mean that Powerball winners are common. For every cop convicted of misconduct, there's dozens that literally get away with murder.

Re:fascist apologist

[Uberbah]

Again, who do you guys think you're kidding? Cops who kidnap and sexually assault people don't get hauled in front of a jury by a DA, they get promoted.

Re:fascist apologist

[Uberbah]

All cops evil. Got it. Thanks.

Translation: you ran out of defenses for the indefensible. Got it.

If there's still any doubt here, lets play a simple game, you and I: you start rattling off cases where cops have been convicted in a court of law for comparatively minor things like perjury or evidence tampering, and I'll list cases where cops have gotten away scott free for major crimes like murder. Common, it shouldn't be hard: if the system you are defending isn't total bullshit, there should be a dozen cops convicted for lying on the stand for every Kelly Thomas in the ground with a fractured skull. For every case of a man repeatedly sodomized in search of non-existent drugs after he leaves a Wal-Mart, there should be a cop in jail for aggravated assault.

But you already know that's a game you're going to lose. Because you're making excuses for people you know to be violent, unaccountable shitbags. Which makes you a shitbag by comparison.

Re:fascist apologist

[blueg3]

Roughly, across the US, there seems to be an average conviction rate for police misconduct of 50/month. The average rate of people being killed by police is about 35/month.

So, for every cop convicted of misconduct, there appears to be about 0.7 that get away with murder (assuming, almost certainly incorrectly, that every person killed by police qualifies as "murder" and that all of them "get away with it").

Re:Broken camera

[Sarten-X]

You may want to look up the word "unjustifiable".

The shooting may have been stupid and tragic, but it's pretty easily justified. Watching the video, the man gets out of his truck without being asked to, ignores the officer calling to him, then pulls a long thin object out of a holder in the back of the cab, which he immediately swings toward the officer. The officer, upon seeing what looks like a small rifle or shotgun aimed at him, shoots the apparently-armed man. The officer didn't realize it was a cane, and the man didn't think it'd look like a gun.

It was pretty obviously a mistake. What's right now is not to whine about "police abuse", but rather to heal the man (who survived and is reportedly doing well), understand that Hanlon's Razor is still valid, and move on.

Re:Broken camera

[neilo_1701D]

One camera might get accidentally obstructed, but suppose a couple of cops turn up. If all the cameras are suddenly malfunctioning, that's looking less like technology and more like collusion.

Either that, or some wise-arse built a camera jammer.

Re:It's all fun and games until the NSA gets invol

[Enfixed]

I fail to see why police video footage being used to help the NSA track a person of interest is a bad thing? Sounds like the most valid example of proper resource use I've heard in a while....

Re:Broken camera

[Anonymous Coward]

Because cars are concealment not cover http://www.theboxotruth.com/do...

Why not use with facial recognition?

[LordZardoz]

If an officer with a camera is in the presence of a man who facial recognition flags as a possible match for someone with an open warrant out on them, it would probably be a good thing for the officer to be alerted about the match.

Now, of course what I am thinking of is the situation where some guy with an open murder warrent in Florida is spotted laying low in Wyoming. Having that guy picked up is probably a good thing.

I wonder exactly what sort of abuse you foresee with that situation? I am sure there are things that can go wrong.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:Why not use with facial recognition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your face was spotted in the area of 34th and Vine. After busting up some private property, the cop wants to make sure there's no witnesses.

A database of fugitives, sure. A database of open warrants, sure. But that's not what the cops are getting, is it now? They're going to have a database of everyone or at least everyone with a driver license, tied to their home address and whatever other information the government feels like throwing in there.

99% of the cops won't abuse this database. The problem is, they won't turn out the 1% who will.

Re:Why not use with facial recognition?

[blueg3]

Sure, because they don't already do that with most-wanted lists, just less accurately.

Re:"and is typically retained for one to three mon

[voss]

In most cases tampering with the video would be a felony. Any decision to delete video would have to be logged by a supervisor.

Re:Broken camera

[Anonymous Coward]

Also most incidents of bad behavior start off with police officers who walk in ambiguous situations with the initial intention to behave professionally (e.g. the officers who beat up Rodney King were not intending to lose control of their emotions and the situation when the encounter started). Those police officers will not turn off their cameras.

Is "most" your guess, or do you actually have any evidence? (Although, I suppose it depends what you mean by "behave professionally"...)

Re:Broken camera

[GerryGilmore]

"You must be new here." Check my uid, Cohiba. I just have a higher opinion of the collective wisdom here, despite the outliers. :-)

Re:Broken camera

[Anonymous Coward]

Watching the video, the man gets out of his truck without being asked to, ignores the officer calling to him, then pulls a long thin object out of a holder in the back of the cab, which he immediately swings toward the officer. The officer, upon seeing what looks like a small rifle or shotgun aimed at him, shoots the apparently-armed man.

So the cop (obviously in sore need of prescription glasses) first shoots an elderly guy who was visibly moving slowly and dazed by the headlights of the police car (so that even if that cane-looking thing had been a gun, it would have been quite a feat if he managed to hit anyone), and then whines like a little pussy about it, even though nobody forced him to do that. Meanwhile, in Germany, the police force in the 80M people country fires <100 rounds per year, total (outside of the shooting range, that is). Well, I know where I'd like to live!

Re:Broken camera

[Jack Griffin]

I'm not a big fan of cops, but that was justifiable IMO. The guy clearly looks like he is advancing on the police with what looks like a rifle. I know from watching US cop shows that you generally stay in the car when pulled over. We don't do that here (Australia), I always get out, but I never advance to the police, and I'd never make it look like I was getting something out of my car or put my hand in my pockets, that is just stupid. Without the camera this story would sound like bully boys cops shooting and innocent old veteran. But the video clearly shows the cops were justified and so video works. This is a good thing.

Re:Broken camera

[AK Marc]

But the footage can be lost and blamed on an "off" camera.

LA Motorcycle cops already have them

[Rinikusu]

I noticed the borg when they pulled me over a few months ago. Interesting. :D

Anyway, cameras on cops probably fall into the "anything we record can and will be used against you in a court of law", but anything that helps your case will require a lot of legwork by your attorney to get. Not to mention "Oh, there was a malfunction that day" that you were conveniently beaten up on the side of the road.

Re:Broken camera

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't tell the difference between a cane and a rifle from a distance of thirty feet, you have no business being a police officer.
( Officer Tip: The entire non-law enforcement population is NOT your God Damned enemy. Quit treating us like we are unless you truly want us to go down that path. . . . )

Had the guy been dressed like a ninja, cartwheeled out of the truck cab, tossed a few smoke bombs and filled the air with throwing stars, and amazing acrobatics, then fine. Shoot him.

Elderly gentleman who can barely move without a cane ? Really ? Holy shit, imagine if he had pulled something REALLY EVIL from the truck. . . . like a ( that can't be a walker, it must be a QUAD ROCKET LAUNCHER ) what then ? Going to call in a swat team ? Sick the canine on him ? Call in air support ? :|

Thought: If YOU or I had done this we would be rotting in jail for eternity. Regardless of what you THOUGHT it looked like, the fact of the matter is: YOU WERE WRONG and someone was seriously injured because of your piss poor observation skills. Go ahead, try it out. Randomly walk down the street and open fire on anyone carrying anything that you might perceive to be a gun and watch what happens.

At the very least the officer should be fired and his peace officer certificate revoked. At the very LEAST.

Re:Broken camera

[Uberbah]

You mean like when NYC cops "professionally" trash the 4th Amendment rights of hundreds of thousands of people by feeling them up for no reason?

Re:Broken camera

[whistlingtony]

"Im against this unless records can be retrieved and reviewed in cases of alleged police misconduct."

I'm pretty sure that's the entire point. Did you even read the summary? Use of force down by 50%, citizen complaints down 90%. This is AWESOME.

where's the tape go?

[the.o.ster.66]

this is one of the reasons i would wear google glass all the time in public. i've had a couple bogus tickets from cops and i'd love to be able to say "let's go to the video tape!". actually, i just want to say that anyway.

Re:"and is typically retained for one to three mon

[Rich0]

They won't be deleted. There will simply be a recording malfunction. At least, that is what all the records will show. No supervisor is going to sign off on deleting incriminating evidence. Plenty will sign off on a statement that no video could be recovered from the device.

Re:Broken camera

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I'm not a big fan of cops, but that was justifiable IMO. The guy clearly looks like he is advancing on the police with what looks like a rifle

You have a strange definition of "advancing" and "looks like a rifle".

I know from watching US cop shows that you generally stay in the car when pulled over.

Well of course, if anything else gets you automatically shot! Ah, the world-wide cultural diversity...

When they start locking up the real criminals ....

[Zero__Kelvin]

Unless cops, and I mean a lot of cops, start going to jail for their criminal behavior, then this isn't working at all. I know for 100% fact that many if not most cops are criminals who commit perjury and break the law on an almost daily basis. Yet, somehow, magically - none of them ever does anything illegal, and no matter what they do they are da officas! Dey wouldn't do nuttin' wrong! Sure they kicked a guy repeatedly in the head, but hey - you don't know what it's like to get such an adreneline rush just from the idea that you are going to be able to kick some poor bastard in the head and then get away with it! Can't you see man! It's OK, cause deys da coppas, and dey get excited, so you can't expect them to not kick a sick and helpless guy in the head, or shoot an old man ... just in case, don't ya know!

Re:It's all fun and games until the NSA gets invol

[akgooseman]

It's not a bad thing until they find _you_ interesting.

Re:It's all fun and games until the NSA gets invol

[blueg3]

Well, the police should be operating exclusively within the U.S. Anyone within the U.S. has 4th Amendment rights, regardless of whether they are a citizen, a resident, or a foreigner. While there is a foreign-intelligence exception (per court findings, not per the text of the amendment), that exception only applies when the intelligence-gathering is directed against a foreign entity reasonably believed to be located outside the US.

I'd love to see the justification someone gins up for tracking individuals that must be physically located within the US for the purposes of gathering intelligence on individuals that are required to be located outside the US.

Re:It's all fun and games until the NSA gets invol

[antdude]

Don't they already do that? :P

Re:Broken camera

[Sarten-X]

If you can't tell the difference between a cane and a rifle from a distance of thirty feet,

...in the dark, from the end, in a quarter-second timespan, when the suspect has already ignored verbal requests, and knowing that officers do get shot at routine traffic stops fairly often ...

Terribly sorry to break it to you, but by your standards, no human should be a police officer.

Elderly gentleman who can barely move without a cane?

From the video, he actually got out of the truck cab quite easily and walked several steps with no apparent difficulty.

If YOU or I had done this we would be rotting in jail for eternity.

No, we'd have a viable self-defense argument to put before the court for our assault charge. Self-defense doesn't require that one's life or well-being actually be at risk, but only that they believed it to be. Now, if you or I had shot the man and actually killed him, then we'd be facing a manslaughter charge, with the same self-defense argument. Assault and manslaughter don't actually carry eternal prison sentences, either. Society tends to frown on punishing accidents excessively.

Re:Broken camera

[Comrade Ogilvy]

They are following the will of the elected officials of NYC and the senior police leadership. That may not make 4th Amendment advocates very happy, but the police are not trying to "get away" with anything that they are not proud enough to do in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses every day.

Re:Broken camera

[shentino]

Using a weapon to assault a police officer is still a felony in most places.

Re:Broken camera

[seededfury]

The cop freaked out and thought it was a shotgun.

He failed in his duties but I can understand that in the dark, he was mistaken but I don't see abuse here. The cop was seriously regretful of his actions immediately after he realized his mistake. I don't see the need to blow this out of proportion. It was a mistake, and yes he should be punished for it but he didn't do it out of malice.

Re:Broken camera

[Frobnicator]

One camera might get accidentally obstructed, but suppose a couple of cops turn up. If all the cameras are suddenly malfunctioning, that's looking less like technology and more like collusion.

That is exactly the thing the ACLU objection was about (for those who didn't read the actual article).

Specific objections were that cops could turn off the camera whenever they wanted, ACLU cited specific examples where critical moments of video were missing. Police barge in, video cuts out, video turns back on with citizen claiming abuse, and Judge decides there is missing evidence, sides with police. See the linked document for legal citations.

ACLU also cited a lack of citizen access to the tape (only cops and prosecutors had access generally) and no data retention policy. They could keep it for years to dig up facts later, or they could destroy it when the citizen complains and claim it was accidentally deleted early.

In general, mandatory cop cameras are a good idea. The trouble with this law was it left far too much in the optional category. Optional when it is running. Optional in citizens getting access. Optional in when the data is deleted. We need mandatory recordings, mandatory access by citizens, and mandatory data retention policies.

Re:Broken camera

[Frobnicator]

But the footage can be lost and blamed on an "off" camera.

That is exactly what the ACLU objected to.

The proposed bill mandated that police carried them, but left optional what is recorded, did not require access by citizens, and did not specify a data retention policy. The ACLU objection (see the actual story) cited cases where police turned off the cameras during the (alleged) abuses, sometimes multiple cops turning off each others cameras, and where judges ruled in favor of the cops when the evidence was missing. Data could also be deleted the same day for no reason other than a personal judgement call.

The bill was a good start, but needs mandatory recording requirements, mandatory citizen access, and mandatory data retention policies.

Stop resisting stop resisting

[WaffleMonster]

Hope this works better than audio recordings abused to provide inaccurate pretexts for all kinds of unnecessary unpleasantries.

Re:Broken camera

[ColdSam]

Officers get shot at "fairly often"? Considering the millions of traffic stops it is a very small percentage, perhaps shooting first is not the best option in all cases.

If you think that old guy was moving "quite easily" you are certainly not anyone I would like to see carrying a gun. He had a difficult time just opening the door. At best, you might think he was really drunk, but that is also not a reason to shoot someone.

If you're unsure, then get back in the car, or maybe hide behind the door. This officer made a tragic mistake that was fortunately not fatal. In his defense the mistake was mostly not because he was a poor human being, just an average human being who was trained improperly (i.e. trained to shoot first).

ACLU is hypocritical.

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

I think cops recording their actions, and people recording cops actions both to be fairly good things.
But I see the ACLU advocating that people record cops, but don't insist cops get the recordings.
Things hsould go both ways.

Re:Broken camera

[strstr]

It can be perfect, but its a conspiracy amongst their ranks to control the public and prevent prosecution for previous misdeeds.

This guy with a PhD who worked for Bush under the White House wrote this white paper on how the police are literally psychopaths, and are more dangerous than the public: http://www.boilingfrogspost.co...

The way to perfection is mind reading technology to valid emotions, thoughts, memories, and impulses, to perfectly prosecute and convict all current government criminals and prevent them from ever regaining power. The Department of Defense, NSA, CIA, and FBI already possess this technology but its being used for psychic warfare and serious spy games abuses. Dr. Robert Duncan says its deployed nationally in all radar and satellites today, and he helped design it during his time with the DOD/CIA/US DOJ. Read his books and look up the technology patents and listen to his whistleblower audio clips about it: http://www.oregonstatehospital...

Perfect conviction is also possible of criminals, and knowing exactly what happened to lead up to finding crime, committing crime, altercations during police encounters, and more. We wouldn't need juries anymore either because a computer can determine guilt and proper "rehabilitation" for all citizens without bias. No flaws, no false convictions, no long trials or need for appeals as the current system work. Releases could be based on the persons actual risk based on their brain waves and thoughts, risks, plans, rather than the typical arbitrary shit and personal opinions of the public today.

Dr. Robert Duncan's book The Matrix Deciphered mentions the literal conspiracy to hide this technology, because it could be used to convict our corporate and Presidential and military overlords, who have lied and conspired and covered up every crime they ever committed, including with this mind reading/altering weapon. Read Duncan's books here: http://www.oregonstatehospital.... html#drrobertduncan

Can't hide a current or past thought/action from TAMI/Thought Amplifier and Mind Interface, or its EEG hederodyning / EEG memory probing feature.

Re:Broken camera

[ComputersKai]

It isn't that hard anyways to claim "oops the technology failed us again...hehe"

Re:Broken camera

[Sarten-X]

Out of 48 officers feloniously killed in 2012, 8 were at traffic stops. That's 16.7%,, surpassing coronary artery disease as a cause of death. Is it unreasonable to worry when you feel chest pain?

Yes, millions of traffic stops happen with no problem, but that's not any comfort when a lone officer's at one that starts to go badly. There's also thousands of things that cause chest pain that aren't heart attacks.

Re:Broken camera

[Frobnicator]

a start doesn't need those things, because it's a start.

Sometimes in businesses or other small policies it is good to implement something incomplete rather than nothing at all.

Law is not one of those cases. An incomplete law can be very detrimental to society and difficult to get changed. When the choice is between a bad/incomplete law or no law at all, prefer having no law.

Re:Broken camera

[Frobnicator]

The other important detail in their study was that when officers were assigned to wear the cameras, their use was not optional. This bill says officers need to have them but did not make their use manditory. They could be kept in a pocket turned off, kept in a vehicle turned off, or kept in the officer's locker.

The ACLU complaint was three items: cameras must be used during interactions; the complete unedited recordings must be made available to the people involved; and a data retention policy must be specified to prevent premature deletion and perpetual retention.

Re:Broken camera

[Wycliffe]

But the footage can be lost and blamed on an "off" camera.

If I was on a jury and it came down to a "he said/she said debate" then I would probably be more likely to side with the cop.
On the other hand, if I was on a jury and the cop had a head mounted camera which was off, malfunctioning, or had missing
footage then I would immediately favor the other person as I assume most people would. As a cop it would be in your
best interest to leave it on as any attempt to turn it off would look like an attempt to cover up evidence.

The idea is good....

[xenobyte]

But of course all parties should have equal access to the recording which hopefully includes audio so defamatory speech on both sides can be prosecuted.

The cameras should run continuously and the footage stored and handled by an independent third party. This way it can be trusted and used in court.

Re:Broken camera

[Narcogen]

The valid statistic is not the percentage of felonious deaths that occur as a result of shootings arising from traffic stops, but rather the percentage of traffic stops that result in shootings.

The question is-- when performing a traffic stop, how quickly should you unholster your gun? That should be based on how likely it is that a gun will become necessary during a traffic stop, not how often shootings that arose from traffic stops turned lethal-- for the COP.

You're also missing a number-- how many wrongful deaths of people other than a law enforcement officer resulted from shootings that arose from traffic stops where the driver was not actually armed or not actually a threat? I'm going to guess it was higher than 8. If so, by your logic that would seem to indicate that drivers really need to have their guns ready when police pull them over for traffic violations, because 16% of the time, when they shoot at you, you'll end up dead.

Re:Broken camera

[ColdSam]

Your emotional and deeply flawed statistical interpretation of the facts is exactly why there needs to be more civilian oversight and officers held accountable for their actions at every interaction, not just like this one which goes tragically wrong.

Your kind of analysis also makes it "rational" to pull out your gun every time you encounter a black man on the street. Statistically, they are more likely to be criminals, so why take the risk?

Re:Broken camera

[Sarten-X]

Of course it's not the valid statistic, but it's the one that's going to run through an officer's mind when he sees someone ignore verbal communications and pull something rifle-shaped out of the back of a stopped truck.

The tragedy here is not that this officer acted improperly, but rather that humans are fundamentally incapable of reliably acting properly in this situation.

how many wrongful deaths of people other than a law enforcement officer resulted from shootings that arose from traffic stops where the driver was not actually armed or not actually a threat? I'm going to guess it was higher than 8.

You could do your own research. I count 6 where "not actually a threat" is reasonable. That's just about 1%.

Re:Broken camera

[Jack Griffin]

You have a strange definition of "advancing" and "looks like a rifle".

Or maybe you do? Good thing we have a jury so we don't need to decide this on an Internet comments section.

Simple Fix

[surd1618]

People should just get used to the idea that if they are dealing with cops, then they are being recorded. This reduces the potential for abuse from police officers, since they would have to account for times their camera was off (affirmative observance), rather than someone needing to discover or prove that they should have had it on. This seems plausible enough eventually anyhow, so why not cut to the chase?

I don't see the UCLA obstructionist reading. I see a vigilent legal entity doing their job, except that law lags behind technology in this instance.