Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras
Several readers sent word that U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has begun speaking in favor of mandatory cameras for police across the country. "Everywhere I go people now have cameras. And police officers are now at a disadvantage, because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of the encounter. And it gives the impression that the police officer has overreacted when they haven't." This follows the recent controversy ove the shooting death of Michael Brown in a police incident, as well as a White House petition on the subject that rocketed to 100,000 signatures.
McCaskill continued, "I would like to see us say, 'If you want federal funding in your community, you've got to have body cams on your officers. And I think that would go a long way towards solving some of these problems, and it would be a great legacy over this tragedy that's occurred in Ferguson, regardless of what the facts say at the end as to whether or not anyone is criminally culpable."
McCaskill continued, "I would like to see us say, 'If you want federal funding in your community, you've got to have body cams on your officers. And I think that would go a long way towards solving some of these problems, and it would be a great legacy over this tragedy that's occurred in Ferguson, regardless of what the facts say at the end as to whether or not anyone is criminally culpable."
Of course, somebody will think this a bad idea...
Or will we one day hear, that, unfortunately, the cameras worn by the officers involved had "malfunctioned" at the most inopportune moment?
(Pay no attention to the remains of chewing gum around the lenses.)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The problem with this is that if all cops feel like they're being audited all of the time, they're less likely to let you off the hook for a minor violation. Then since they have to charge you with something, and there's supporting evidence, you're not going to get a plea or reduction from a mandatory sentence in court.
I know that doesn't sound like a big deal but cops let thousands of people off per day on minor things where people just need a warning.
I mean, that or just make it such that the case is dismissed if the device fails and no other hard evidence exists.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Fewer complaints against the cops, complaints get resolved quickly and fairly, fewer cases of cops using violence, they caught one copkiller because the cop he killed had filmed his face.
It's been good for just about everyone, yet some cops keep resisting. I guess because they no longer get their 3 months paid vacation while complaints get kicked around by the unionistas before being summarily dismissed, replacing that with a day off while the tape is reviewed is a hard sell.
Make evidence retrieved without camera coverage inadmissible, citations issued without camera coverage inadmissible, and so on.
and states are completely free to fund their own law enforcement needs without asking the fed for money
For once, a form of government surveillance I can support!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It's a good idea, don't get me wrong. It's about time we used this ubiquitous cheap technology in an obviously beneficial way. It's a good move, and one I support.
But either after this comes about, or as part of the deal, the content of that camera needs to be stored offsite and specifically out of the reach of the police officer. Otherwise we're going to see a lot of data simply go missing at convenient times. To be frank, we can't trust police departments to hold onto evidence that could incriminate themselves.
And any evidence that an officer tampered with their camera in an effort to suppress incriminating evidence should be dealt with exactly as if they had destroyed evidence. Because that's what it is.
Though I don't think, this particular one is a bad idea, I am worried about the yet another illustration of how the Federal government's control reaches into the crooks and nannies it was never supposed to reach:
By ratcheting up the Federal taxes, the Federal government has come into position to dictate the terms to local governments, who can neither print money nor raise their taxes to finance themselves without bankrupting local economies. But don't you worry — it is not dictatorship, you can always refuse the federal monies, can you not?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Albuquerque has had problems recently with police shooting a homeless man and their lapel cameras show something that appears to be a real unjustified use of force.
Now that there is loads of bad press from the released videos, the last couple of "incidents" have been plagued with ummm... Camera Malfunctions! That's it. The cameras just malfunctioned and didn't work. We just don't understand it. Sorry, but we don't have any video of that last shooting...
A really good idea, but the devil is in the details.
Cops can already wear a camera and can already run facial recognition. You seem to be confusing the absence of this law as being equivalent to a prohibition of activities you do not like. It is not, and your logic is fallacious.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
It is not a subversion of the Constitution, since the 16th Amendment explicitly authorizes it.
Well, I guess that since a tiny slice of the cops MIGHT disable their cameras, we shouldn't do it at all. We probably shouldn't do anything at all, ever. We should probably just make murder legal and stop prosecuting it, since some people still murder...
I do not understand how people with this outlook can get anything done in life.
Cameras are good. They keep everyone, cops and public, polite. If the camera doesn't work, that comes out in the courtroom. That's what the courtroom is for.
Grampian Police started this a year ago and the police in London in May.
"And police officers are now at a disadvantage, because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of the encounter. And it gives the impression that the police officer has overreacted when they haven't."
Or maybe they have, because they have the legal authority to use force and the citizenry they are sworn to protect and serve do not.
I find it a very disturbing trend that "ordinary citizens" are now viewed as dangerous and "the enemy" from which the noble police (and other official institutions) must be protected. When I grew up, the general tone was that of Blackstone's Formulation ("It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"). Now it seems to be "It's better that ten innocent persons suffer than that one guilty person escape".
Fine. But the fed shouldn't be taking that money from states' residents in the first place. It's subversion of the constitution by the backdoor and should be stopped.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Sixteenth Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
So, the taxes are EXPLICITLY a power delegated to the United States.
Just like everything else in this country, a few bad apples ruin it for the rest of us.
My dad is a retired cop, very honest guy (though maybe I'm a bit biased). Most of the guys on the force were genuine good guys, of course there was 1 or 2 jackass's that would do stupid shit.
If a chest cam is going to eliminate the contradictions between the cop and the suspect, so be it. A few thousand people died 13 years ago in a terrorist attack and now the rest of us who want to fly on a commercial aircraft are treated as potential terrorists.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
It's 2014 and nobody uses tape to record. Recorded data should be sent to a remote data store that the defendants, PD and DA have read only access to.
I'd like to see a camera in every public school classroom as well.
It would end the 'he said/she said' arguments when a kid is being disruptive and the parent refuses to believe their snowflake is anything other than perfect.
It could also allow for a better means of evaluating a teacher's performance. Currently it is done with in person audits by an administrator...teachers behave quite differently under that situation.
Constitutional amendments libertarians don't like are unconstitutional FYI.
I'll be happier when I see cameras on the politicians. It'd be interesting to know what they agree to do in private lunch meetings with corporate CEOs and billionaire bankers. Criminally interesting, I suspect.
That sounds more like a passive-aggressive mafia threat than a realistic possibility. "Oh, you better not do that, or else we might have to stop being so lenient with you!" Why would wearing cameras mean that "they have to charge you with something"? Why would the public tolerate a police force that operates on a mentality like that?
This is exactly why we need cameras. Individual departments and officers are unique, but in general the American public has lost its faith in its police forces, and for damned good reasons. Police have shown themselves, in too many instances lately, to behave like a well-funded, well-organized group of thugs than exemplars of honorable behavior, law and order.
Police are there to serve and protect our communities, and they serve the way we want them to serve and at our discretion. Any deviation from that order should be met with pink slips for any commanding officers or subordinates unable or unwilling to adapt to the reasonable demands of their bosses.
If someone complains about an interaction with an officer where the officer's camera has no record of the interaction, the officer is assumed to be guilty.
That should give officers incentive to ensure their cameras are in working order.
Just a few years ago, I got pulled over for honking my horn at someone that was about to hit me. I don't think the cop saw the other car... but whatever. When he walked up to the car he yelled "Something wrong with your horn??!?!" to which I replied "Nope, I just tested it and it worked just fine." his reply was to draw his gun on me. I'm white, was 35 at the time, ware business casual and a business haircut.
This isn't a race issue, it's a cop issue. I've had numerous run-ins with the police like this that more or less boil down to me having a smart mouth and not "respecting their authority" because, quite frankly, I don't. I shouldn't be afraid every time I get pulled over, but I am. That's not right.
My son is adopted, and African American, and you're damned sure he's getting the talk when he's old enough. The police are not your friends, they are not here to help. They can legally murder you where you stand and get away with it on a routine basis. I would not say that the majority of them are "Good guys" and this is just a few bad eggs. I think the position attracts certain kinds of people that have ego problems and use the job to exert a psychological need to control others. The screening process and training they receive needs to change radically. I've never had a positive encounter with a police officer. Even when my home got broken into they used the opportunity to search my belonging because it was a "crime scene" That sort of behavior engenders distrust and leads to less crime being reported.
As someone in the business of selling law enforcement equipment, I'll tell you right now, most of the body cams available for law enforcement are compete and utter crap.
Not only that, they don't have an effective back office solution to manage all that video. Sure you can dump the video onto a hard drive, but it needs to be indexed somehow so it can be searched for later by officer name, date, etc.
A few companies are trying to make body worn cameras that don't look like blair witch recordings, but at this point, there's still at least a year away before anything usable arrives.
Was Michael Brown surrendering with his hands up when he was shot, or was he attacking the police officer? Body cam video would have gone a long way to answering that question.
When investigating complex matters like police shootings, more evidence is better. There is no way you can convince me that less data would make the investigation better.
I think it was Montana that once tried to refuse the federal money over the speed limit (not many here have driven a Montana highway at 55).
Arizona tried to ignore 55 and not enforce it in certain areas where they thought higher speeds were appropriate and safe. The feds got annoyed and tried to cut highway funding for Arizona. So Arizona started enforcing the 55 mph speed limit. A friend got pulled over and received a ticket, not for speeding -- a moving violation that would put points on his drivers license and raise his insurance rate, but for "improper use of finite resources" -- an infractions that did not show up on one's driving record. In other words he received a ticket for "wasting gas" not speeding.
Separation of powers happened because the founding fathers understood that no single concentrated power could be trusted. Universal surveillance of all government officials would simply be an extension of this principal.
The founding fathers would approve filming government at ALL levels, from congress to notary. Multiple cameras (in the case of cops, dash-cam and chest-cam), streaming to web, with read-only access and multiple, physically separated backups.
There is no *technical* reason this can't be done, and frankly, it's a good idea. Think how much crap congress and K-Street wouldn't have gotten away with, had this been in place.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I took a citizens class at the local PD. They said an officer had received many complaints against him. In response, the chief required that he have his radio broadcasting audio during every single interaction he had with the public. The complaints ceased.
This is an awesome idea. Not original at all, of course. I fully support it.
Not only should cops and squad cars be mandated to have extensive cams working at all times we need exactly the same thing in our jails and prisons. Abuse by guards as well as inmates should be made impossible. And we need voice as well as video. No cop should ever be able to blackmail an inmate or make deals with inmates under any conditions. And inmates should find it vastly difficult to conspire with other inmates. The days when a guard could force a prisoner to have sex or sell drugs within the prison or be rewarded for being an enforcer for the guards needs to come to a total end. Secrets are evil in and of themselves and secrets perpetuate crime as well. To enable the Truth to set us free we need to turn on very bright search lights.