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."
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.
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
You don't know very many republicans, I suspect. I'm one, and I'm all for this.
What I am opposed to, for the moment, would be:
- Federal compulsory regulation requiring this. Local governments (and state governments as well) have the responsibility and so can make the decisions themselves. Claims that federal civil rights law would compel this are specious. Federal intrusion here leads only to more federal control, and I'm still enough of a Conservative to oppose this.
- Federal funding, which would be the vehicle for regulation. Federal funding is the hammer to drive control. Just say no. Those dollars came from somewhere, you know.
Police departments and communities that have problems with their police already know this, and should be acting. Citizens need to elect officials that ensure that problems are solved.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
What if the police got to the scene of a crime after the victim (a black man) managed to turn the tables on the attacker (a white woman) and the only thing the camera saw was the victim (a black man) attacking the attacker (a white woman) in a panicked frenzy? Camera and the police says the victim (a black man) is the attacker, therefore the victim (a black man) gets arrested. Investigation? Why conduct one when the police (partly) caught a black man beating a white woman on camera?
How is this any different from the current situation? Currently, said officer will simply testify in court, "I arrived at the scene and the only thing I saw was a black man attacking a white woman in a panicked frenzy."
At least, with the camera solution, we can be 100% sure that the officer isn't telling a flat-out lie when they say something like that in court.
As a Republican, I 100% agree with the idea and want it to happen.
I also want codified in that same law that all citizens are able to video officers for any reason at any time if they can do so from pubic property or private property they are allowed to do so, and are not physically hampering what is going on.
Any attempt to keep the public from recording or interfering with that recording is de facto proof of violating the civil rights of the photographer and the person that the officers are engaging.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
it will put the case back into a he said/she said context, against the word of a cop... pretty much what we have now
No. It is not at all what we have now. Without a camera, it is my word against the cop. With a camera, it is my word against a cop that is claiming he "lost" critical exculpatory evidence. That is a huge difference, because in the second case the cop will have far less credibility. I have served on juries several times, although only once where the credibility of the cop was an issue. The jurors did NOT just assume he was telling the truth. Instead, we discussed his possible motivations for lying and distorting the evidence. In the end, we chose to believe him, because we didn't see any reason for him to lie, and his testimony was corroborated by other evidence. Juries tend to be made up of minorities, and economically disadvantaged people, that don't have the motivation or ability to weasel out of it. These are the people least likely to believe cops. If the cop says the camera malfunctioned, the defendant is going to walk.
The shooting in Ferguson was used as an excuse to riot.
Look at the story, every 'witness' says he was shot in the back running away ... until the autopsy shows that NONE of the wounds were in his back. From the start every witness account was bullshit.
No. "Every" witness didn't say that. Lawyers who regularly investigate situations like this say that when you have a lot of witnesses, you get different accounts. When every witness gives the same story, they assume that the witnesses got together and made up a story together -- which cops often do.
Ferguson was a town in which most of the population was black, the cops were white, the district attorney was white, and most of the politicians were white. One of the main sources of income for the town was stopping black motorists and giving them traffic tickets.
There were many incidents of brutality by white cops against black people, and this was only the last straw. Most of the demonstrators were peaceful.
And oh yeah. The residents made a memorial for Michael Brown, his mother laid flowers on the spot that he was killed -- and one of the cops brought a police dog to urinate on it.
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
Michael Brown's Mom Laid Flowers Where He Was Shot—and Police Crushed Them
As darkness fell on Canfield Drive on August 9, a makeshift memorial sprang up in the middle of the street where Michael Brown's body had been sprawled in plain view for more than four hours. Flowers and candles were scattered over the bloodstains on the pavement. Someone had affixed a stuffed animal to a streetlight pole a few yards away. Neighborhood residents and others were gathering, many of them upset and angry.
Soon, police vehicles reappeared, including from the St. Louis County Police Department, which had taken control of the investigation. Several officers emerged with dogs. What happened next, according to several sources, was emblematic of what has inflamed the city of Ferguson, Missouri, ever since the unarmed 18-year-old was gunned down: An officer on the street let the dog he was controlling urinate on the memorial site.
Suppose some cop brought his police dog to piss on your mother's grave. Would you get mad?
The reason they have race riots, all over this country, is that people go through the whole process of polite complaints and peaceful demonstrations, and get nowhere. They're routinely getting killed and the cops routinely get away with it. And then the cops stop them in the street and humiliate them, like they did here when they knew they were the center of attention with cameras around. What do you suppose they're doing when there aren't any reporters around?
They riot because they found out that riots are the only thing that works. When they burn down the town, the white establishment finally pays attention.
I doubt that you would pay attention otherwise.