Slashdot Mirror
Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force
An anonymous reader writes: Incidents like the Michael Brown case have recently put police body-worn cameras into the public consciousness, but they're not a new idea to criminology experts. In fact, researchers at Cambridge began a study in 2012 using law enforcement in Rialto, California as a test bed. Their results are now in: "The experiment showed that evidence capture is just one output of body-worn video, and the technology is perhaps most effective at actually preventing escalation during police-public interactions: whether that's abusive behavior towards police or unnecessary use-of-force by police." The simple knowledge that both parties are being watched puts a damper on violence. "During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures." This was enough for the city of Rialto to decide it wants to move forward with body-worn cameras; hopefully the study will encourage other police departments as well.
Use my phone to record my better half when she starts to get obnoxious, and guess what? She immediately changes her composure. Nice little tip for those with hot temper wives.
Accountability is paramount in keeping any powerful system in place.
The police would increase their political power by using their unions to make deals with prosecutors, secure reassignments, and avoid real repercussion for improper use of that power. This political obfuscation and inherent force is what allows systemic abuse to happen.
The solution is not to fight back with violence against the inherent force, but to shine a light on the political obfuscation. The protests are best where they ask for accountability and transparency. The less that is kept behind closed doors, the better.
What benefit do the police have to hiding their processes? It's the same as a spouse refusing to say what they do when you're not around, point-blank refusing to address it, especially after you've already caught them cheating once. You're going to assume the worst, right?
By forcibly shining the light in, and creating accountability, the "good cops" that are brought up in arguments against people who universally dislike the police actually get their chance to shine, and the cockroaches in the organizations start to scatter. If you want to be a brute, go to a field where it's encouraged, like paramilitary contractors.
Yes, if only the cop had a camera during the Michael Brown stop, then I suppose his killing would have looked more like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Don't forget, the cops in that case knew they were being filmed. Here's another case where cops disgracefully killed someone when they knew they were on film. He had a weapon, but was at such a distance that he posed no threat at all ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) And another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Any time that cops are in a store, they know they're being filmed on security cameras. Here's another "heroic" action by the cops, committing what any sane human would consider to be murder while they know that they are being filmed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And of course don't expect some of the footage not to go "missing" ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/... ), and don't expect the footage to even be released ( http://www.citylab.com/crime/2... ). And even if it goes to a grand jury, don't expect the District Attorney not to knowingly put a liar on the stand and throw the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Obviously this is all anecdotal and not "scientific" compared with the study in the summary, but it should be clear that this problem of police violence is not going to be completely solved until the cultures of "shoot first and ask questions later" and "protect each other" within law enforcement are changed.
Not that they were necessarily "better" but I think the attitudes of police towards the public have indeed changed over the past forty years. Forty years ago there weren't SWAT teams. The cops did not bash down your door, throw in flash bangs and shoot your dog to serve a simple search warrant. They....knocked on the door.
Did they always lie (well, they have to and there's nothing wrong with that so long as it's not under oath), plant drugs on people, shoot black people? Yeah. But damn if they weren't more polite about it.
The "us vs them" mentality wasn't so readily apparent. Maybe it was there and we just didn't notice because there weren't cell phone cameras, and they were mainly doing it to black people. Still, I don't remember cops 15 years ago driving APCs, in body armor, all black, and referring to citizens as "civilians." Now I hear that routinely. If we're civilians...what exactly are you? And what exactly is our relationship?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I'm still furious about the flashbanged baby thing.
The entire circus around Michael Brown was media-generated. Perhaps I need my tinfoil hat adjusted, but I think deliberately so. It's like it was purposely pushed to make black people get up in arms, when clearly, most people looking rationally at the case can wish it didn't happen, but can hardly blame the cop. Brown wasn't innocent; he robbed a store. He wasn't just minding his own business until cops hassled him because he was black; he was walking in the middle of the street. I want cops to stop people walking in the middle of the street and ask them wtf they're doing. He was not an "unarmed teenager;" he was a 300lb man who punched the cop. What the hell? When you drive that story in the media, people like my father who don't think police brutality is a problem take notice of the story, say "this is what the liberals are complaining about? They're morons!" it confirms his biases and he goes right back to ignoring the problem.
Where's the outrage and the marches and protests and media helicopters over flashbanged babies? SWAT teams busting down doors at 3am to serve search warrants? "Overwhelming force?" Budgets that rely on "civil forfeiture" which is literally highway robbery? No, the media pushes the non-story of Michael Brown. Muddies the issue. Ignores the real problems.
It's a conspiracy. A C-O-N...spiracy.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Cameras are only a partial solution. While they tend to keep **both** sides honest and calm, they don't really change the fact that if the cop is in danger he will react with deadly force out of fear. Another part of the solution is to not send cops out alone, always have them go out in pairs.
If a cop is alone and fears a person may try to take his gun he will not let that person get close enough for a wrestling match. He will shoot.
If a cop is not alone he is far more likely to use a less-than-lethal weapon such as a taser or baton since his partner will have a lethal weapon at the ready should the person get ahold of the cop's gun.
Cops are paranoid about losing control of their gun, according to the FBI about 10% of those cops shot are shot with their own gun. Having a partner greatly helps reduce this fear.
Garner was resisting arrest.
Barely at all.
The police are authorized to apply force to enforce the laws.
But not excessive force, and not when someone is saying they can't breath. Certainly not that choke hold which was against policy.
It's unfortunate that Garner died, but had he not resisted, he'd be alive today.
Why don't you move to North Korea? I don't know if you realize this, but the US is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Everyone should be extremely cautious and critical of authority figures, not give them the benefit of the doubt or let them off when they screw up (intentionally or not).
If the cops hadn't applied overwhelming force and had actually listened when he said that he couldn't breath, he would be alive. Why don't you blame the people who actually used the force? They made their own decision to do so.
The bottom line is, the cops are supposed to respect people's liberties, have legal authority over others, and are supposed to be trained professionals. They deserve no mercy when it comes to being prosecuted, but prosecutors are of course biased in their favor, so good luck punishing them.
Do you realize that american police officers kill united states citizens at over 50x the rate UK and German police officers kill their citizens?
Do you realize that american police officers kill more children each year (including 7 year old girls) than UK and german police officers kill all citizens (including adults) combined? And basically at an infinitely higher rate.
United states police have reported* killing over 400 citizens per year since 9/11. Meanwhile, germany and uk have killed reported killing under 4 citizens per year in the same time period.
*United states police forces are NOT required to report citizens killed and many do not so the actual number of citizens killed in the united states is higher than reported.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Here's the problem with your argument. At least under the legal system the Garner case is under, it is illegal to resist arrest. Yes. But it is not punishable by death. He was also entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers and to be provided legal representation. The point where lethal force is warranted is if the suspect is attempting or threatening to use lethal force against the officer. Yeah, this might come as a shock to you, but if I were to go to punch an officer in the face, the officer is not legally allowed to use lethal force because I'm not attempting to use lethal force against him. There, that's what the club, the mace and the Taser is for. And however you try to swing it, the officer was using a banned choke hold. A choke hold that was banned because it was known to cause.....death. The officer used lethal force, when lethal force was not being threatened against him.
Of course, the one nobody is talking about is, who really needs to be taken to force here is the DA. It's the DA who is ultimately charged with keeping police in line by holding them accountable. There seems to be a systemic failure of DAs charging officers when they commit crimes, and I'm referring to petty crap, like parking in the fire lane to get a cup of coffee or parking on sidewalks to radar people, which allows the police to feel they're above the law which then leads to the serious stuff happening. The DAs are the ones ultimately who should be taken to task for their abysmal behavior. And if you want to argue this one, I raise a challenge. Look at what a normal person is charged relative to the crime they committed versus what a police officer is charged with relative to the crime he committed, on the rare occasion that an officer is actually charged. Yeah, police always get minimal charges while normal folks get everything the DA can think of to charge them with.