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.
Who woulda thunk it.
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.
"People react differently when they know they are being watched".
What this cop was too stupid to realize was, the response to his comment is:
YES! THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE WANT THE CAMERAS.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Those lower percentages scare me because it's clear proof that a majority of police officers abuse their powers.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
So cops don't beat up perps because they're being watched, interesting. How about the cops learn to control themselves like normal human beings?
If the police involved don't want to be recorded, they shut off the cameras or rip the antennas off the car. Not hypothetical - happens all the time. There are few consequences.
I'd predict the citizens will modify their behavior far more than the police will. Citizens can't shut off the camera - or turn the disabled camera back on. People will still be beaten or railroaded or extorted for cash if a cop decides it should be so.
Yes. Cops behave within the limits of the law when they're watched and many can't be trusted when they're NOT watched. I don't think we really needed a study for that.
How nice if this would turn in to legislation. Of course, for that we'd need a congress that had focus, a spine and would actually be bothered to consider the will of the people.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
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.
I cycle in a major metro area and started wearing a highly visible helmet camera for liability reasons.
I also noticed (anecdata!) that the camera tended to have a calming effect on motorists near me as I would (for example) turn to look over my shoulder and the camera profile was visible.
Not all motorists are calmed when they see my camera, but it seems many are (for example, they'll ease off tailgating me and shadowing my blind spots).
I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.
YMMV
blog
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.
Sure, cameras cut down on the use of force by the police.
It also cuts down on the incidence rate of perpetrators claiming they got roughed up by the police in an attempt to get out of their charges.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force
Where has the "unacceptable" word come from, which is peppered throughout the article? Isn't it enough to simply report, without resorting to subjective qualifications such as this, that:
Data from the Rialto experiment shows police officers are deterred [...] from using force in general
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Fox News anchors have already gone on air claiming that body cameras are insulting to police.
Antonio Martin was armed and likely robbing a gas station.
For that matter, can we stop equating Eric Garner, who was murdered, with Michael Brown, who was not?
And can we start talking about Victor White III, who was assassinated in the back of a police car?
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Then why should the police care about violence against you?
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
a surprising number of murders of citizens by police happen when the cameras are not turned on.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
I really don't care about violence against police, but if this bullet points helps convince PD's to adopt cameras then super!
What an ignorant statement you offer. Violence against police is why police react so forcefully. According to the FBI nearly 10% of police officers who get shot are shot with their own gun. That is why unarmed people who try to get into a wrestling match with cops get shot, because the cops are very afraid of losing control of their own gun.
People who are compliant tend not to get shot. People who react violently are far more likely to get shot. So if you actually care about people getting shot you should care about violence against police.
Or: perps don't go into physical confrontation with police when faced with the fact that there will be video evidence of the event.
Having a camera there makes no difference to the perps - as you call them. The perps were always at a disadvantage because the cops can say anything and justify anything. In other words, the cops are in effect a "camera" because their word is considered fact in court.
The cop says that the suspect put up a fight, then the suspect put up a fight. Cops says the suspect resisted arrest, then it is fact that the suspect resisted arrest.
And even when there are witnesses to the contrary, the cop's word supersedes the witnesses.
Cops rule; public drools.
So, your logic makes no sense.
Then why should the police care about violence against you?
The police in question... already don't care. So it's kind of a moot point.
and reports against officers dropped by 87%
While most people on here are focusing on the police portion, the civilian portion is more damning. It shows the amount of crap police have to put up with by people who think they'll file a brutality report so they can not be held responsible for their actions.
I don't have the link, but some on here will remember the video of the woman who was in the back of a police car yelling and screaming for the police to stop hitting her without realizing a camera was recording the whole thing. When she claimed police brutality, the video was shown and the charges were thrown out.
While there is certainly some police abuse going on, there are much more claims by people of police abuse where none exists. Just like dashboard cameras, it works both ways so when people claim they weren't doing anything when they were shot, the camera will show them reaching for their gun (see the most recent shooting in Missouri though we don't have video of the incident).
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Brown was shot because he escalated the situation to a "high risk arrest" by going for the cop's gun. Period. That is the single factor that dominated all that followed. According to the FBI 10% of the cops who get shot are shot with their own gun after losing control of it. So go for an cop's gun and the rules of engagement radically change. You will not be allowed to get close enough for a wrestling match. Once you go for the gun your not just some guy who stole some cigarettes and shoved a store clerk. You are according to police training and the law a lethal threat if you try to get close rather than comply and get on the ground.
That's great, but how much do they reduce mass surveillance?
We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
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.
We have no evidence that Brown was trying to take Wilson's gun, only the word of a cop who's been caught lying before. Cops know that "he was going for my gun" are magic words to justify themselves when they commit murders.
And of course it's irrevelvant whether Brown tried to get control of Wilson's gun earlier in the confrontation. Brown was not trying to do so when he was murdered, he was (according to the majority of witness testimony) attempting to surender.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
This is obviously just a ploy for the tax payers to fund the upcoming season of "Extreme Cops: BODY CAM EDITION"
We have no evidence that Brown was trying to take Wilson's gun, only the word of a cop who's been caught lying before. Cops know that "he was going for my gun" are magic words to justify themselves when they commit murders.
Sorry, coroners reports say there was gun powder residue on Brown's hand. You are severely misinformed.
And of course it's irrevelvant whether Brown tried to get control of Wilson's gun earlier in the confrontation. Brown was not trying to do so when he was murdered, he was (according to the majority of witness testimony) attempting to surender.
You have progressed from severely misinformed to absolutely clueless. Minutes earlier he went for the cops gun, that is highly relevant and it absolutely controls everything that followed. It escalates the situation to "high risk". As "high risk" he is more likely to be pursued than to be left to flee. As "high risk" the officer is consider by training and law to be in danger and justified in not allowing the suspect to get close to him.
Regarding witnesses, many have proven to be lying. Seriously, we have one lady changing her story once the feds showed up and said she didn't really see it, she just repeated what her boyfriend told her had happened because she wanted her boyfriend's story to get out there. Witnesses had claimed he was shot in the back, proven false. Witnesses had said he had his hands up, proven false, a bullet grazed his arm indicating otherwise. Seriously, go read the released testimony regarding the evidence rather than rely on what some guy on the internet told you because your "facts" are way off from reality. There is a problem with cops and the communities they police and some cops are bad but in **this** one particular case these factors are not present. People foolishly tried to use this case to highlight these legit problems before the facts were in and now they are having a hard time coming to terms with the facts, that they picked the absolute wrong case to highlight the issues.
How many of the "eye witnesses" in the Brown case weren't even at the scene until after it happened? No surprise that 87% of claims against police go away when there's a recording of what actually happened.
And who down-modded the parent post? It was at 2, now back to 1. People who do that should be banned from moderating
Here’s the problem with cops wearing cams. Any information gathered by a pubic servants during the course of their duty is subject to disclosure. Given that some information is exempt from public requests, (personal information about victims, pending cases, anything considered private..etc), personal information will, and needs to be redacted. If available, this will generate a never ending stream of public information requests to municipalities demanding this newly created video. The video will need to be edited for redaction prior to release. Some cities/states have maximum time requirement laws in which information must be released. This will necessitate the hiring of dozens of video editors to supply edited videos to fulfill RFI’s. (request for information). I work closely with several cities. It’s amazing how many pointless fishing expeditions currently squander millions of tax payer dollars requesting every single email, document, text message, voice mail – pretty much everything everyone does – when some old guy gets a bug up his butt that the city didn’t treat some right of way in front of his property correctly or some one wants to be a political candidate. Now release video of police walking around with video cameras and there will be a non stop stream of ambulance chasers reviewing every second of available video for potential legal mongering. This will place addition burdens on public legal resources. Prepare for costs, taxes, and laws to protect public workers to skyrocket. ,, nothing is free
It's pretty hard to come up with a different explanation.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
You can't be free without a cost. If lawyers are going to continue to ruin society, we need to curb them... but given how democracy is failing those issues are really sideshow to the real problems. Cutting down on misinformation and ignorance are one of the few things left that can be done to support democracy.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Yeah, he was walking down the middle of the street, blocking traffic. That is a weird and dangerous thing to do, and is obviously a matter of public safety, which is exactly the kind of things cops are supposed to look after.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Antonio Martin was armed and likely robbing a gas station.
According to the cop. Who was 'accidentally' not wearing his body camera.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Sorry, coroners reports say there was gun powder residue on Brown's hand. You are severely misinformed.
All that means was that his hand was within a few feet of the gun when it went off. He could have been defending himself, hiding his body or grabbing for the gun. But there is no proof of one over the other.
Except for the bullet hole in the police car telling us Brown's hand was deep inside the car and that the cop was sitting down.
Um, he got shot more than once. More than twice. More than three times. I could go on, but I doubt you'd get the point...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Um, he got shot more than once. More than twice. More than three times.
Perhaps ONE of the six times he was shot, his hands were near the gun.
Which says NOTHING about whether or not he was in the car.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Brown was shot because he escalated the situation to a "high risk arrest" by going for the cop's gun.
it was never an arrest situation to begin with, it was just an a-hole cop bullying people on the street. sometimes people get tired of being bullied.
Um, he got shot more than once. More than twice. More than three times. Perhaps ONE of the six times he was shot, his hands were near the gun. Which says NOTHING about whether or not he was in the car.
Except for the fact that the bullet fired in the car tore off some skin tissue and left it in the car.
Brown was shot because he escalated the situation to a "high risk arrest" by going for the cop's gun.
it was never an arrest situation to begin with, it was just an a-hole cop bullying people on the street. sometimes people get tired of being bullied.
"At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market and a brief description of the suspect, who was believed to have taken a packet of cigars. Officers were told to look for a black male wearing a white T-shirt, running toward the QuikTrip convenience store. Additional information was soon added: the man was wearing a red Cardinals hat, khaki shorts and yellow socks; a second man was with him. At noon, Wilson asked the officers searching for the robbery suspects if they needed assistance. An officer responded that the men had disappeared. Two minutes later, at 12:02 p.m. Wilson radioed in, "Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car," a request for additional officers. Sources have told the newspaper that prior to making that call, Wilson claimed he told Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson to stop walking in the street. Wilson said it was after that that he recognized that Brown matched the robbery suspect's description, called for backup and stopped his SUV next to the two men."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fe...
I said no such thing. You put your own words in there. Nobody but a lying cop & a dead guy know the facts.
All I said was that one of the shots got residue on his hands. It could easily have been lots of different ways. At lots of different places. But you only see it one way.
On the other hand, we have the facts that emerged from the in-depth investigation involving the grand jury, which come together to form a very clear and consistent flow of the events.
Now we all know you're a fucking joke.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Why are police officers armed with lethal rounds in the first place? Less lethal "rubber bullets", actually rubber coated steel spheres, should be more than sufficient for all non-SWAT scenarios. While they aren't death or injury free, the mortality rates are vastly lower than lethal munitions while still having considerable stopping power.
Totally. Violent criminals usually think twice about attacking an officer because he's wearing a camera. That makes so much sense, I can't believe I didn't think about it.
This might offer proof of a shattering fact. It looks as if cops are prone to breaking laws and rules whenever they feel they can get away with it. That strongly implies that cops with perfectly clean social and legal status have about the same mentality as most inmates. Although there are a few inmates who have no concern at all for punishments that will quickly follow an illegal act. And that type of inmate in all fairness is insane. If a person who is so far gone as to have no concern over being killed or jailed forever simply can not be capable of intent. But society cheats just like many cops cheat. Society does not want to really understand mental illness so it passes laws that do imprison people who act out as a direct consequence of their illnesses and have no control over their behaviors.
Prove he went for the cops gun. You can't, there is no evidence, and only the cop himself says it.
Skin tissue from his hand where the bullet grazed him is found in the car. His blood is on the gun, inside the car and on the cop's uniform in a manner consistent with the cop being seated in his car.
You mean Michael Brown? In what way was he blocking traffic? How much traffic was blocked? I've not heard the media actually reporting the details of the police allegations on that.
In any case, the statement was:
I want cops to stop people walking in the middle of the street and ask them wtf they're doing
That doesn't specify blocking traffic in any way, and even then my solution was to say "Hey, use the Sidewalk" though where I am, as I said, there's a lot of streets without sidewalks to use. So people walk in the middle of the street a lot.
So I wonder, what are the police going to do?
Walking in the middle of the street? Walk closer to the curb. Walk on the shoulder. Walk on the grass. Someone walking in the middle of the street is what I would expect drunks, people high on drugs, with alzheimers, or dangerously low blood sugar would do.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
do you want the neighbors to see footage of your topless wife yelling at you? given the current laws, it is not unlikely that some footage might constitute child porn.
If your wife is an under-age child, you have bigger problems.
Besides, you can see that stuff on Cops and Cops Reloaded all the time. People behaving like idiots even when there's a camera getting it all. And if you think it's just cops and citizens acting stupid, you need to watch some of those stupid shows (not too many - they'll cause brain damage) where people take lie detector tests and dna tests to prove who was cheating on who first, who's the father of their kids, etc. People act stupid on camera all the time - just search Youtube.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Here here and amen brother. It is FAR worth than the authoritarian followers like the GP believe.
My brother (not from US - so this is not just a US problem) wanted to be a cop in his early 20's. He was training every day to make the physical etc. He would have made a great cop. He was a massive guy but quick and could punch like a mule when we trained together. Good temperament but I had never seen him back down from an asshole (or group thereof) in his life.
He met 3 cops who were on holiday and the obvious discussion took place. They eventually asked him the obvious: "why?"
Paraphrasing Heavily:
He said that he was a very honest person and believed in helping the community against the bad guys.
They told him that as a cop he would be asked to lie in court on a regular basis. If he refused he would be harassed etc by the brass and his peers until he either left the force or complied.
They said if he could not handle that then not to bother signing up.
He went in IT....
Now all you stubborn, blind, "cannot be wrong" authoritarians can call me a liar and blah blah blah but I promise you this story is true.
...
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.
The study does not claim that cameras eliminate the problem. To quote the summary:
use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59%.
That's a good thing, even if it's not perfect. And it provides information to help understand when excesive force is being used, and provides evidence in cases when it is used. Unbiased evidence to help get to the actual truth. All of this is a Good Thing (tm).
Or should we let the perfect be the enemy of the good?
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Your situation isn't the same as the shooting. There were sidewalks, and he wasn't using them, as required by law (jaywalking),
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
All of the wild speculation posted as if it were facts, by people who weren't there and this don't actually know what happened, is pretty good evidence that it'd be beneficial for police to wear body cameras that can't be disabled. Then if the truth were documented objectively, rather than the via the recollections of a bunch of people with imperfect memories and biases, then the situation would be better.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Stop resisting arrest and you won't force the police to use violence. Be calm and surrender. That way you don't get wrestled to the ground, beaten with batons, tased or shot. Don't point a weapon at an officer and refuse their lawful order to put down the gun or you will get shot. Show the police the respect they deserve and don't mouth off and get angry. Police have to deal with the worst kind of people on a daily basis you certainly don't want to push their buttons.
It's not a race thing even a white lady had a bad experience, she's trying to sue United Airlines for 5 million because on the last leg of a journey to an Alaska ski trip she antagonized the stewardesses more than a couple times and the pilot forced her off the plane. The Seattle police boarded the craft and calmly asked this lady to come quietly or you'll be arrested. Nope, she had to have an attitude and that's when they cuffed her and dragged her off the plane, tearing her jeans in the process. Then they booked her and she was stuck in jail over the weekend. My guess is she hit the bar waiting for this flight and was drunk. She tried to lay down in more expensive seats as well as an exit row. She was obviously belligerent with the flight crew. Now she didn't get shot but she didn't pull out a gun nor did she seriously pose a threat to the officers.
Remember:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-rnl2dU3_k
"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"
From that, you determine that the title of the article should be that it "reduces police use of force"?
Clearly, the MAIN result is that it reduces BS claims of "police brutality" more than anything.
I'd be curious to understand why the submitter and editor so-titled the article.
-Styopa
I am all in favor of reducing unacceptable use of Force if this is about dark side of the Force.
Police should not punish culprits.
That's the job of the Courts.
Casteism
Black police should deal with black culprits to reduce https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Casteism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Casteism
That gives a thug less responsibility regarding human life? I don't buy that. We all have that responsibility. Cops are given weapons because they have to insert themselves into dangerous situations in which they may be killed or wounded, whereas the average citizen is expected to get away (or try) from a dangerous situation if at all possible.
Cops aren't supermen, they're humans just like everyone else. They feel pain, fear, have families, etc..
It is their job to stop crime; it is not their job to take a bullet for someone, or unnecessarily risk their life. An estimated 125 cops have died in 2014. The fact that there are a few asshole cops (as there are a-holes in every walk of life) out there shouldn't change the big picture about what they can do.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
It's not really necessary to prove that he went for the gun. Witness testimony and the physical evidence shows that he was involved in a violent struggle inside of the car. If he was not the agressor in that struggle how do you explain him being in the vehicle for more than the briefest of moments. Brown had the advantage of size, strength, leverage, and position. Are you saying that Wilson pulled Brown through the cruiser window into his lap, then pulled his firearm and shot him? I'll admit that isn't beyong the realm of possibility, but it doesn't make much sense. Brown assaulting Wilson sounds much more plausible, especially after he had just succesfully commited a strongarm robbery.
Even if Brown did not go for the gun Wilson is still justified in drawing and possibly using his firearm. He is authorized by law to use the minimum force required to stop/apprehend a criminal or suspect. In the previous struggle he would have already determined that he was not a physical match for Brown and so would have to use some other force multiplying tool or strategy. Drawing his firearm if it wasn't already out would then be appropriate given that he was not equiped with a taser.
Was Wilson justified in actually shooting Brown after the initial physical confrontation, I don't know, and I probably never will. If Brown was threatening another physical assault, then I would say "yes". If Brown was doing pretty much anything else, then "no".