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.

Comments

Obviously

[gurps_npc]

To quote a very stupid cop who was arguing against cameras:

"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.

Re: Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

But what will be the reaction of the "activists" when these cameras capture indisputable footage of, say, somebody like Michael Brown launching an unprovoked physical attack against a police officer?

Will they actually admit that maybe the thug involved wasn't such a "good boy", and that maybe it's incorrect to claim "but he didn't do anything wrong"?

Will they just repeatedly deny what the footage shows?

Will they start demanding the removal of these cameras, after the cameras repeatedly capture footage of incidents in which the police acted perfectly reasonably, and some thug did not?

The response to the convenience store footage in the Brown case may be a good preview of how they'd react. It clearly showed Brown acting very violently, and clearly up to no good. Yet instead of accepting what it so obviously showed, the "activists" came up with all sorts of excuses, denials, and even outright fabrications regarding it.

Re: Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the situation doesn't make sense to you. As you just demonstrated (proving the GP right, I may add), you willfully ignore facts that you happen to dislike, leaving behind a nonsensical patchwork of your feel-good fabrications mixed with 5% of the reality of the situation. The picture is actually much clearer and consistent when you stick to the facts of the case, instead of injecting make-belief nonsense like you have a propensity to do, apparently.

Re:Obviously

[meta-monkey]

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?

Re: Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

But what will be the reaction of the "activists" when these cameras capture indisputable footage of, say, somebody like Michael Brown launching an unprovoked physical attack against a police officer?

Relief that they don't have to rely on the testimony of a police officer, but can instead use video evidence that is hopefully reliable.

The response to the convenience store footage in the Brown case may be a good preview of how they'd react. It clearly showed Brown acting very violently, and clearly up to no good. Yet instead of accepting what it so obviously showed, the "activists" came up with all sorts of excuses, denials, and even outright fabrications regarding it.

The response was that...there was no reason to release that evidence except to shape public opinion, rather than have people honestly question the conduct of the police officer, who didn't witness any such event, and that even if the Police officer had seen it, that use of a firearm would not have been appropriate.

Of course, you remember the false X-ray claimed to be showing the injury suffered by the police officer, so what was up with that?

Re: Obviously

[Charliemopps]

But what will be the reaction of the "activists" when these cameras capture indisputable footage of, say, somebody like Michael Brown launching an unprovoked physical attack against a police officer?

They'd probably ask why he tried to apprehend someone twice his size without any backup. Then ask, why after he'd already shot the guy 4 times he had to put 2 more bullets in his head.

Cops should be able to defend themselves, but they seem to be throwing themselves into needless danger over and over again. He was a moron to try and wrestle with this guy over a pack of cigars. If he got away, so what? Then, I don't think I've ever heard one of these police shootings that didn't involve the cop emptying a 16rnd clip. This isn't a western. That, again, is stupid. How many bystanders had bullets whizzing past them? What if the guys friend then turns on the cop? He's out of ammo! And worst of all, you just shot someone to death over a box of cigars. That's not ok. Maybe we should instal missile launchers in their headlights to? There's a jay walker! Lets nuke the intersection, he might be armed!

Re:Obviously

[fustakrakich]

"People react differently when they know they are being watched".

Yes, we are quantum beings.

Re:Obviously

[s.petry]

Why do you think that cops were more accountable 30 or 40 years ago?

Before an answer, I will say that a large part of that trust came from being ignorant to the way the world actually works. I was young, delusional, and believed that authorities would never lie. Outside of Nixon and Kissinger of course. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, and looking back I don't believe they were as accountable as I wanted to believe.. but there are several differences between today and then in attitude and training of law enforcement.

Back then, police were not held in a higher regard than the public. Respected, sure.. but a cop's actions were measured by their risk to the public. For example, the commando style raids we see today are a very new phenomenon. 30-40 years ago this would not have happened unless someone's life was in eminent danger. Today we have commandos chucking grenades into houses to serve warrants. We have commando style raids for non-violent crimes like drug dealing. Cops shooting family pets because they claim "I was afraid of the dog". Those things simply did not happen back then. Police were expected to respect the public as much as the public respected them.

There are many other differences in training and actions found to be acceptable then and now. A cop shooting someone today can simply use the excuse "I thought I was in danger", even when it's a kid playing army with his buddies. That would have had an officer suspended without pay 40 years ago, and back then there were many more kids out playing army/cops & robbers, etc.... Toy guns were much more common, hell we brought them to school to play at recess.

Lastly hiring practices are much different then and now. Then, there was more worry about public perception of officers. Cops were expected to outsmart the bad guys, not kick their asses. Today agencies want the ass kickers, bad asses, and bullies. "Gangs" are not something new, so that excuse does not work as the justification.

Re:Obviously

[meta-monkey]

Citizen? They use the word "civilian" like it's something we are and they aren't. They're civilians, too. They're not in the military.

Re: Obviously

[zlives]

I believe Eric Garner was on tape in a choke hold... wonder what the activists are saying about that.

Don't tell me police doesn't abuse their powers

[ArcadeMan]

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."

Those lower percentages scare me because it's clear proof that a majority of police officers abuse their powers.

Re:Don't tell me police doesn't abuse their powers

[wisnoskij]

You could argue that exact opposite with the same data set. Maybe it proves that putting the criminals in the spot light reduced their violence by 60%, and reduced false "police brutality" claims by 90%

Re:Don't tell me police doesn't abuse their powers

[ArcadeMan]

D'oh!

Re:Don't tell me police doesn't abuse their powers

[wile_e_wonka]

Maybe it proves that putting the criminals in the spot light reduced their violence by 60%, and reduced false "police brutality" claims by 90%

If this is true then it still makes perfect sense to use the body cameras. There are far fewer allegations of police brutality to deal with--whether the reduction comes from an actual decrease in police brutality or from a reduction in false claims of police brutality or an increase of cooperation of the people in-front of the officer--who cares? It's all good to me.

In my mind, the only true downside of the body cameras is the expense of dealing with collection and storage of thousands upon thousands of hours of mundane footage. I am not confident that the monetary benefit of the cameras (e.g., I witnessed a trial of police officers accused of police brutality, which allegations were utterly falsified in my opinion. The department spent a lot of money on that case) will outweigh the monetary cost (I think the cost of maintaining the system will be more than the cost of false allegations). But, there is a nonmonetary benefit that it sounds more and more to me like outweighs the cost.

An effective police force needs the trust of the public, and I think this is at a low point lately. It sounds like the body cameras will probably help.

Re:Don't tell me police doesn't abuse their powers

[Spamalope]

But if they only reduced their violence output by 60%, why the 90% fall in reports?

The police were more likely to act as we expect them too, and the criminals were less likely to make false claims they knew would be futile. I'd be suspicious if there was any other result.

Message brought to you by Captain Obvious...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

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.

Accountability is the name of the game

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:duh

[Luckyo]

Or: perps don't go into physical confrontation with police when faced with the fact that there will be video evidence of the event.

It works both ways.

Re:No s**t Sherlock

[Runaway1956]

Yep - seems a no-brainer to me. Anyone who ever went to school knows that the bully isn't going to hammer the snot out of you while the teacher is watching. He waits until Teach has gone back inside to grade paper!

Many people have thunk it.

[MisterSquid]

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

Re:Many people have thunk it.

[NoKaOi]

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.

"Quickly?" In other words, you're riding along the right hand side of your lane, and as a car approaches intending to pass you, you quickly move into the middle or left of the lane to force them to quickly slow down to prevent passing. Doing anything "quickly" that obstructs others is a dick move and you know it. You're an asshole who makes the rest of us cyclists look bad. Only in very rare situations would that "quickly" move promote safety. It's unsafe to anger another driver, both to you and the next cyclist they come upon. You're not doing it to promote safety, you're doing it to express dominance, like a gorilla beating its chest.

Next time you try that, think about this - are you doing it to promote safety, or are you doing it to try to express dominance by proving that you can legally be a dick? Believe me, the other driver doesn't care how big your penis is, so be the better person and don't be a dick or a dumbass to cars when you're on your bike, you're making the rest of us look bad, and it hurts us when we actually want to promote safety or policy changes (who wants their tax dollars to pay for bike lanes for a bunch of assholes like you?)

Re:No s**t Sherlock

[Gliscameria]

And whatever said bully says is taken as truth unless there is concrete evidence against it, and even then it's a tie. If the police don't want to wear cameras then their testimony shouldn't be allowed.

If only the cop had a camera in Ferguson...

[Bueller_007]

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.

Re:Cameras work

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need to record her to change her behavior, your relationship is doomed. I wonder what she does when you aren't around.

Re:Cameras work

[rubycodez]

how about when she's feeling kinky and feisty? does that put the damper on or stoke her fire?

links to video in your reply as proof, please

Re:Good timing...

[Stargoat]

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?

Violence against police ...

[drnb]

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.

Re:Violence against police ...

[pla]

Violence against police is why police react so forcefully.

Uh-huh. Why, just look at the violence from this unconscious asshole! Why, that threatening way he got thrown from the car when it rolled over at highway speeds - Heck, even I felt intimidated by him, just watching the video!


People who are compliant tend not to get shot.

Right - They just get tased, pepper-sprayed, and/or choked out for shits n' giggles.


The only good cops know they have a camera trained on them (and can't just smash it and harass the photographer), period.

Re:Violence against police ...

[pla]

Exceptions don't prove the rule.

You see all those "good" cops standing around "just doing their jobs" in those videos?

The guy choking the drunk college kid out doesn't prove the rule. All those "good" cops doing nothing, however, do.

For every bad cop we hear about, know that an entire fucking department has facilitated his behavior, making them every bit as worthless as the "bad" ones.

Re:Violence against police ...

[drnb]

Again, exceptions don't prove the rule.

And bystander videos do not exactly tell the whole story. The cops on the scene may see or have seen many things that the bystander never did, or the bystander failed to record. That is why police body cams are so much more useful. We get to see a far more complete portrayal of events.

Re:Violence against police ...

[Strangely Familiar]

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.

No, it goes both ways. Police who are overly aggressive and verbally abusive tend to provoke ordinary citizens with a sense of dignity and self respect. When citizens reply verbally in kind to unfair and abusive treatment from the police, the unfair, abusive police escalate and turn the situation violent where the situation should not be violent. This is one of the reasons police cameras work. The police tend to self-monitor and self-censor their overly agressive and abusive behaviors before a confrontation begins to escalate. So a cop is much less likely to start a traffic stop interaction with an angry comment like "What kind of fucking moron drives forty eight in a residential area?" if they know it is going to be on camera for their boss to see.

Not all cops, of course. I have been pulled over by many polite and respectful police officers. And of course, police typically have to deal with drunken belligerents more than church choir members. But someone who is drunk should still be treated with respect, not verbally abused, even while they are being arrested and jailed.

Re:Violence against police ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why don't these 'good' cops, who "do not condone this behavior", I dunno... ARREST the cops who do this stuff?! I mean, letting people get away with something is pretty much the very definition of "condone".

At the very least, all the 'good' cops should take the 'bad' cop out for a drink, and 'explain' the situation to him- "Hey Bob, we've noticed that you like to break the law sometimes, choking suspects, illegally searching them, etc. Well, we just wanna let you know we won't stand for this, and will be starting to gather evidence against you if you continue doing it."

Re:Violence against police ...

[Spamalope]

For every bad cop we hear about, know that an entire fucking department has facilitated his behavior,

And the police union, for getting the ones so bad they were fired reinstated with back pay.

Re:Violence against police ...

[pla]

Again, exceptions don't prove the rule.

You have an odd definition of "exceptions", when I specifically included both the bad cops and the rest of their departments. "But you left out that one really really good cop in a coma for the past 30 years!"


And bystander videos do not exactly tell the whole story.

True enough. Why, in that first video I linked, you don't get to see the context - That the guy had just run over a spike mat, lost control of the vehicle, and almost hit a cop. Clearly that missing details justifies half a dozen armed thugs beating the shit out of an unconscious guy lying bleeding on the side of the highway. Damned biased bystanders, always trying to make the police look bad!


We get to see a far more complete portrayal of events.

Except, of course, when the cameras "malfunction" at those very convenient moments when the accused suddenly has an attack of clumsiness and walks into a brick wall... Repeatedly.


That is why police body cams are so much more useful.

And that is why police hate hate hate mandatory camera policies to the point that they piss and moan and vandalized the cameras and threaten to go on illegal strikes over them.

Re:Violence against police ...

[drnb]

Again, exceptions don't prove the rule. You have an odd definition of "exceptions", when I specifically included both the bad cops and the rest of their departments.

Not really. The exception I referred in both my posts was a video showing bad behavior by police. A video is what we call anecdotal, not statistical. The number of police is a single video is irrelevant.

Why, in that first video I linked, you don't get to see the context - That the guy had just run over a spike mat, lost control of the vehicle, and almost hit a cop. Clearly that missing details justifies half a dozen armed thugs beating the shit out of an unconscious guy lying bleeding on the side of the highway

You have an odd definition in "context". When a spiked mat is layed out they are generally dealing with a fleeing suspect who is endangering civilians in some manner, i.e. high speed chase. Getting dragged out of the car, forcibly put on the ground and handcuffed is a pretty reasonable response. Also the odds are fair in such incidents that the suspect was armed when things started. That said, there is no excuse for beating a suspect.

And that is why police hate hate hate mandatory camera policies ...

Actually in that department in California where the long term test has been going on the officers like the cameras.

Re:Violence against police ...

[Noah Haders]

an MRAP makes the average citizen think he is in danger from an armed military invasion. if the police did not behave as if they are an occupying force, then maybe the citizenry would be more receptive to dealing with them.

Re:Violence against police ...

[HiThere]

You are correct about "the rule", the problem is that one instance of vile behavior can totally cancel out over a hundred instances of good behavior. Depending on how bad it is it can cancel out over a thousand. And while there is a definite limit as to how good a cop can be, the limit as to how bad he can be is extremely high. And they don't effectively "self police". Even the "good cop" tends to feel that he must protect the bad cop, no matter what he is guilty of. And tends to act to protect him.

OTOH, in many parts of the community, there is much more expectation of encountering a bad cop than a "good cop". And this is justified by what gets reported by believable sources. (That you believe other sources is almost irrelevant.) And there is, unfortunately, a certain amount of evidence to show that the perception of those who don't trust the police is correct. This ranges from their armed intrusion into the wrong house, and shooting the residents to the less violent, but much more frequent action which have created the "crime description" of "driving while brown or black". Please note that it doesn't seem to matter what the race of the officer is, so I tend to consider this abuse a "crime of power" rather than "racial intolerance", but I admit to being uncertain about the reasons.

Re:Violence against police ...

[Strangely Familiar]

Oh, and file a report? Please. You could get arrested for trying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The perps?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:good news

[Charliemopps]

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.

The more interesting part

[smooth wombat]

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).

Re:No s**t Sherlock

[Imagix]

Or, as mentioned in the summary, the customer is not being abusive towards the officer as often and thus avoids escalation to where the officer feels that they need to up the force.

Going for cop's gun drastically escalates situatio

[drnb]

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.

Re:Good timing...

[meta-monkey]

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.

Cameras only a partial solution

[drnb]

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.

Re:Cameras only a partial solution

[bugs2squash]

The handgun part is what has to change. We need to stop promoting them as a must-have item to walk the streets by playing on machismo or exaggerating threats, and/or we need to make them harder to get, or we need to render them obsolete with some better technology. I think we worship them too much for there to be hope of anything but the latter, though it seems a long way off.

Re:Cameras only a partial solution

[sl149q]

Part of the problem with the recent shooting of the kid with a toy gun was the cop's arriving in a car at full speed and stopping literally a few feet away from the kid. They then had no opportunity to assess the situation and instead pulled out the guns and shot him because they now where afraid they might get shot.

Since the park was empty it would have been far more appropriate to stop and assess from a distance.

So a (possibly) correct reaction to the circumstance they arrived at. But they arrived at that circumstance because of some very bad decisions made as they arrived.

Re:No s**t Sherlock

[cyberchondriac]

Yes, it goes both ways. Very often the viral videos you see of police brutality does not show what led up to the transgression, so, a portion of the cases may be misrepresented by way of missing context.
This way, everyone has an objective look at the entire encounter. The cameras are a win-win for everyone.

Re:Going for cop's gun drastically escalates situa

[drnb]

Brown was shot because he escalated the situation to a "high risk arrest" by going for the cop's gun. Period.

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.

Eye witnesses

[tomhath]

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

Re:No s**t Sherlock

[Anonymous Coward]

Very often the viral videos you see of police brutality does not show what led up to the transgression, so, a portion of the cases may be misrepresented by way of missing context.

On the other hand, the Police, being the trained professionals, should be able to handle "abuse"... professionally.

Also, 'what led up to it' is irrelevant in many cases. The fact I called your mother a whore 5 days ago, 5 hours ago, 5 minutes ago, or 5 seconds ago doesn't make it right for you to choke me to death, shoot me, or tase me.

be careful what you wish for -

[sdinfoserv]

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

Re:No s**t Sherlock

[Free Censorship]

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.

Re:Cameras work

[BarbaraHudson]

If you need to record her to change her behavior, your relationship is doomed. I wonder what she does when you aren't around.

The usual stuff. Spit in his food, starch his underwear, throw out / erase his pr0n, set up a dating profile for him under "men looking for men", drive the car until there's just enough gas left to get home and park, unplug his phone at night while it's charging and plug it back in just before he gets up, redecorate the house, bake chocolate exlax chip cookies, stop replacing the toilet paper when he uses the last of it, ball up his clothes so they get good and wrinkled before she puts them up, wash his favorite jeans in hot hot water so they shrink ... you know, the usual stuff. :-)

Ammo selection

[blue9steel]

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.

Re:No s**t Sherlock

[Maxo-Texas]

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.

Dirty by nature

[MrBigInThePants]

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.

If only the cop had a camera in Ferguson...

[bledri]

...

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?

Re:No s**t Sherlock

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No s**t Sherlock

[Anonymous Coward]

But not excessive force, and not when someone is saying they can't breath. Certainly not that choke hold which was against policy.

Except that the "choke hold" had nothing to do with Garner's death. His death was caused by lying on the ground with a man kneeling on his back. As clearly evidenced by the fact that he was still able to talk. If he was being choked, he wouldn't have been able to move air through his neck at all. Because he was being crushed instead, he could move air *out* but not in. He could speak but not breathe. Later, when he was moved into a position where he could have breathed, he had difficulty because he was asthmatic. Then he had a heart attack because his heart was working harder to move oxygen around his body. Then he died.

When you talk about the "choke hold," you distract from the real issues. They should not have thrown an obese man onto a hard surface. Given that he was lying on a hard surface, they shouldn't have kneeled on his back. Those are areas where a policy change and training could help. Yet instead of concentrating on the tragedy, your narrative tries to assign blame. By doing so, it distracts from taking actions that could prevent similar tragedies in the future. Instead of looking for policy changes, you are focusing on blaming the officer. If you succeed, people will say that the choke hold was already banned and no policy changes would be made.

Every time you say "choke hold," you open yourself to debunking. The proof that there was an illegal choke hold goes like this: the officer's arm was near Garner's neck; Garner said he couldn't breathe; therefore, the officer's arm was choking Garner; NY police ban a particular hold that can be described as a choke hold; therefore, the officer was engaged in an illegal choke hold; Garner died; therefore, his death was caused by an illegal choke hold. However, Garner saying that he couldn't breathe proves that he was *NOT* being choked at that time. Police claim that the officer's arm was not in a position to apply the particular hold that was banned.

That's the problem with false narratives. They don't hold up under scrutiny.

Of course, there's another problem now that will likely prevent policy changes. The deaths of the two officers leave the police much less likely to compromise on new training to prevent incidents like this in the future. They're dug in now and unlikely to engage rationally.

Re:No s**t Sherlock

[Ol Olsoc]

Care to cite a single case where that 'twas the sole provocation and the related result?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Howzabout no provocation. When the prosecution got hold of the video refuting everything they said happened, teh lying, and the completely unnescessary violence and needless property damage, the prosecution dropped charges, and the police were put on trial. Watch the whole thing, it was shown that they started going on the resisting arrest rant, busting out the windows, punching the guy, and accusing him of "tring to grab my gun" while his hands were up.

Then again, I suspect with your ridiculous, "Cite a single case" comment, you fully approve of the way they handled this, the way they hid the evidence, don't ya?

Hey, here's another one for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Oh yeah, I'll bet that lady cop doing the strip search had a good time, especially since she used the same glove to insert her finger up the woman's vagina after she stuck it up the woman's rectum

Enjoy, and Merry Fsstivus.