Police Complaints Drop 93 Percent After Deploying Body Cameras (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader writes:A study from Cambridge University documents an immense drop in complaints against police officers when their departments began using body cameras. But even more surprising is that the data suggests everyone is on their best behavior whether the cameras are present or not. The data was collected in seven police departments, and represents over 1.4 million hours logged by 1,847 officers in 2014 and 2015; the researchers published their data last week in the journal Criminal Justice and Behavior. Officers were randomly assigned to wear or not wear cameras week by week (about half would be wearing them any given week), and had to keep them on during all encounters. The authors used complaints against police as a metric because they're easy to measure, an established practice in most police forces and give a good ballpark of the frequency of problematic behavior. In the year before the study, 1,539 complaints in total were filed against officers; at the end of the body camera experiment, the year had only yielded 113 complaints.

Comments

Of course

[110010001000]

Of course. This whole police brutality bullshit is simply bullshit. The police don't want to mess with people. The problem is that people are fucking out of control. Stand the fuck up for the anthem and pull up your pants and act civilized.

Re:Of course

[ThomasBHardy]

So you don't think that just perhaps the officers wearing cameras were behaving better knowing they were being recorded?

It seems to me that to place all of the blame on one side is rather narrow minded of you.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole police brutality bullshit is simply bullshit.

The brutality part isn't but the racial aspect is. Just to gin up the black vote and rile the lefty base. We won't hear anymore about it in the news after the election.

Re:Of course

[grasshoppa]

While I'll grant you that the data can be explained by competing theories, in this case only half the officers had cameras on. That certainly suggests that it's not limited to officer behavior.

Re:Of course

[Junta]

In fact, that would be the simplest way.

In order to believe that those not filed would have been mostly frivolous, it would mean that the would-be complainers would be very aware of the body cameras. I'd wager that the only party that is very aware of the body camera most of the time is the officer.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. This whole police brutality needs privacy. The police can't mess with people when they are being recorded. The problem is that police are fucking out of control. Stand the fuck up for the anthem and pull up your pants and act civilized.

Re:Of course

[BitZtream]

No. Just read the summary that says that the complaints dropped for police NOT wearing cameras as well.

This implies that people stopped complaining because they didn't know if the police had a video of them, so they didn't rush to say something that could easily be shown as bullshit on video.

This was EXACTLY the reason they started using the cameras. There are plenty of power abusive asshole cops. There are more people who want to take advantage of cops by playing the victim ... unfortunately for police these people are also much more inclined to try to take advantage of cops by making up bullshit, cops deal with criminals remember?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

We've put cameras everywhere. People now routinely carry them in their pockets. We have not photographed Bigfoot. We have no video of aliens. The existence of the Loch Ness monster is not a proven fact.

We have hours and hours of video of corrupt cops. We have video of cops shooting unarmed people. We have video of cops beating unarmed people. We have video of people being arrested and phones being smashed simply because cops believed they were being filmed.

Yes, when cops carry cameras, and their activities are recorded, and they know this, and they can not turn them off, their behavior changes. For the better.

Re:Of course

[Nethemas the Great]

Why not? The officer on an "off" week is simply performing the habituated alternate behavior. Perhaps even the officers cognizant of things and simply applied what they learned, that is, when they're not being a douche they have a better day at work.

Re:Of course

[jellomizer]

Usually it is brutality causing a feedback of intensity. The police man stops a guy, he is tense, that makes the policeman tense, which makes the guy defensive, which make the policeman to be more aggressive, that makes the guy feeling like he will need to fight to protect himself, which causes the policeman to fight back... With this feedback loop someone will cross the line first.

Having the camera, makes the guy less defensive, as he knows if something does happen to him there will be evidence, and the same with the policeman. Which desculates the feedback loop, as it puts a gap in the emotional response, knowing whoever crosses the line first will be the one who loses.

Re:Of course

[ShanghaiBill]

So you don't think that just perhaps the officers wearing cameras were behaving better

Did you read TFA? Or the summary? Complaints against the police went down. So the police were behaving better, or perhaps there were fewer false complaints.

It seems to me that to place all of the blame on one side is rather narrow minded of you.

The summary says "everyone" behaved better, and does specifically blame either side. TFA implies that police behavior changed.

Re:Of course

[lhowaf]

Hey, look - TFA makes wild-ass guesses, too!

Specifics on how exactly this is happening are unclear. Is the officer less confrontational to begin with, avoiding escalation? Or are suspects and complainants more wary of their conduct? Is it some combination of the two, or are even more factors involved? To determine these things would be a far more complex and subtle piece of research, but the study does suggest that officer behavior is probably the most affected, and that other effects flow from that.

Re:Of course

[grasshoppa]

It's a possibility. However, it goes against everything we know about how people work. Implied habitual behaviors, shared by a dept, radically changing virtually overnight is unlikely. In the extreme.

Even if you had one or two statistical outliers who did modify their behaviors in such a way, you'd have far more who get tripped up and shit would get on camera.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Whose to say behavior changing during the interaction is the main reason for the difference. Maybe people are less likely to file BS complaints when they know the interaction is on video.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing ineffectual political policies with whether or not there is an actual problem.

Democrats lack the courage to take on the police corruption, it's doubtful that even prison de-privatization will happen, let alone other needed reform.

Re:Of course

[Fnord666]

While I'll grant you that the data can be explained by competing theories, in this case only half the officers had cameras on. That certainly suggests that it's not limited to officer behavior.

Assuming that officers worked in pairs and given that the cameras were randomly assigned, any given team will not have a camera only 25% of the time.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Which election? This shit has been going on for years... it's not just about the current US presidential election.

When we start seeing videos on YouTube of white people being tased to death, or shot way too many times or in the back or both, or being choked to death while being unarmed and non-hostile, then you can claim this has no racial component to it.

Re:Of course

[Kaenneth]

Another officer on the scene might have a camera.

Re:Of course

[sjames]

The behavior already changed radically and virtually overnight. The only matter up for debate is why.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

could very well be true. It is difficult to behave like an angel only when camera is on so when change of behaviour is done it is done globally and not only for weeks with camera.. Does not work for all probably and there are some that have to work hard to not be an arse. Looking from another perspective most of police officers joined the force not only to earn their bread and butter but also to do what police officers are expected to do and cameras just enforce good behaviour they aspire to have anyway but fail because they are 'tired' etc. The interesting part of it would be if the change is constant over the years.

Re:Of course

[ThomasBHardy]

I find it difficult to attribute a preponderance of the change onto the public. The individuals who might have normally filed a complaint would have no inclination to not file a complaint when the officer in question was not wearing a camera.

If the reduction in complaints matched the likely hood that a camera was involved, sure, I'd agree that the numbers track. I find it far more likely that the officers, knowing there's a chance that someone is recording (themselves, their partner, or another unit that shows up) are acting on their best behavior in all cases and thsi have a larger impact on the overall results.

The two factors together are likely what is influencing the outcomes.

Re:Of course

[war4peace]

The behavior change stays when off camera for a simple reason: knowledge that data comparison can be used against you.
Officer john wears the camera one week and gets 3 complaints. Next week he doesn't wear the camera and gets 30 complaints. It's safe to infer he behaves like an asshole when off-camera, so, to counter that, he is NOT an asshole even when not wearing the camera.

Re: Of course

[HornWumpus]

Blacks are shot by police in excess when compared to their % of population, but less than would be expected based on their % of violent criminal population.

Now is where SJWs yell that % of criminal population is a 'racist statistic'.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it suggests it is down to officer behaviour. All the police had cameras at some point during a study, and the reduction in complaints happened to both police with an active camera and those without.

In an encounter with a policeman who doesn't have a camera the only difference between new encounters and those from before the study is the officers knowledge of the study and previous experiences wearing a camera. The people on the street will have no knowledge of the bodycams or that they have been in use, and with no camera present their behaviour will be the same as pre-study.

The fact that complaints dropped even with no camera present (but with the officers knowledge that it's a possibility and possible experience wearing one) suggests that wearing a body camera enforces good policing and that this effect lingers after the cameras are removed.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

little does he know the camera has been "accidentally" turned off, and the escalation was planned from before the flashers even lit.

Re:Of course

[Krojack]

I would say it's a mix of all of the above. Not all cops are assholes and the public are angels. Each has it's share of bad apples. I've seen my fare share of videos where people antagonize police for a reaction.

Re:Of course

[JoeMerchant]

Are you kidding, the escalation was planned from the day of application to the academy. Only the crafty ones get through with that agenda in mind, though - there are actually psych profiles that filter out the worst of the "gonna crack me some heads" abused children looking for payback.

Re:Of course

[Gorobei]

Agreed. Very few people (police included) wake up and say "I want to be a jerk today, escalate lots of situations, get complaints filed against me, and be in a bad mood all day 'cos I didn't abuse someone enough."

Once they see being reasonable, and taking the professional stance, works as well or better than abusing the other person, they internalize the new behavior pretty fast. They probably go home feeling more professional and happier, camera or no camera.

Re:Of course

[phantomfive]

Alternately: while being polite for the week with the camera on, he realized there is a better way to interact with people, and it gets better results.
I doubt many police like getting tons of complaints, so he was happier when his complaint count went down.

Re:Of course

[Oswald McWeany]

We've put cameras everywhere. People now routinely carry them in their pockets. We have not photographed Bigfoot. We have no video of aliens. The existence of the Loch Ness monster is not a proven fact.

On the other hand there was convincing evidence of Bishopville South Carolina's lizard man caught on camera in the last couple of years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Re:Of course

[haruchai]

You forgot the /sarc

Re: Of course

[haruchai]

"Now is where SJWs yell that % of criminal population is a 'racist statistic'."

What about the statistic that minorities are stopped, ticketes or incarcerated at much higher rates for the same non-violent offenses?
Is that racist? Against whom?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!

Re:Of course

[tlambert]

Why not? The officer on an "off" week is simply performing the habituated alternate behavior.

Unless they also received nicotine as a result of wearing the camera, I'm going to vote for successful operant conditioning.

Otherwise, no one would swear in the vicinity of a visible "swear jar".

Re: Of course

[HornWumpus]

Nothing to do with violent crime rates. Unless you believe cops under investigate violent crimes with white victims.

Re:Of course

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Officer john wears the camera one week and gets 3 complaints. Next week he doesn't wear the camera and gets 30 complaints. It's safe to infer he behaves like an asshole when off-camera, so, to counter that, he is NOT an asshole even when not wearing the camera.

An alternate explanation would be that people don't make as many false complaints when there's video evidence available.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand there was convincing evidence of Bishopville South Carolina's lizard man caught on camera in the last couple of years.

Ummm...that was Hillary on the campaign trail...

Re: Of course

[haruchai]

"Nothing to do with violent crime rates"
So? It have everything to do with incarceration rates. And many, of any race, who were locked up for non-violent crimes go on to commit violent ones.

Re:Of course

[chihowa]

Officer john wears the camera one week and gets 3 complaints. Next week he doesn't wear the camera and gets 30 complaints. It's safe to infer he behaves like an asshole when off-camera, so, to counter that, he is NOT an asshole even when not wearing the camera.

An alternate explanation would be that people don't make as many false complaints when there's video evidence available.

Likely, but complaints dropped even when the officer wasn't wearing a camera: "But even more surprising is that the data suggests everyone is on their best behavior whether the cameras are present or not... Officers were randomly assigned to wear or not wear cameras week by week (about half would be wearing them any given week), and had to keep them on during all encounters."

Re:Of course

[chihowa]

The police also know that they're participating in a study involving wearing these cameras and may have been on their best behavior because they knew that they were being observed. Maybe their superiors told them to be on their best behavior because the number of complaints against them was being closely investigated.

Maybe they were on their best behavior when not wearing the cameras because they wanted to spoil any correlation between their good behavior and wearing the cameras, but it was instead interpreted as the cameras having a more pervasive influence.

It's hard to properly blind the participants in this study, so it's hard to account for all of the unexpected influences.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, from the police officer's point of view, there is basically no such thing as an unarmed person, because the can always go for the officer's gun.

Re:Of course

[tattood]

Likely, but complaints dropped even when the officer wasn't wearing a camera: "But even more surprising is that the data suggests everyone is on their best behavior whether the cameras are present or not... Officers were randomly assigned to wear or not wear cameras week by week (about half would be wearing them any given week), and had to keep them on during all encounters."

It is also possible that even though an officer was not wearing a camera, they were on their best behavior for fear that another officer who was wearing a camera might show up to assist and capture their bad behavior.

Re:Of course

[Penguinisto]

Likely, but complaints dropped even when the officer wasn't wearing a camera: "But even more surprising is that the data suggests everyone is on their best behavior whether the cameras are present or not... Officers were randomly assigned to wear or not wear cameras week by week (about half would be wearing them any given week), and had to keep them on during all encounters."

So... how exactly does the average perp (who isn't exactly a cyberpunk hacker-type dude) actually know if there was or wasn't a camera present? Probably wouldn't.

It's also highly likely that once reaching jail, said perp would likely try to lodge a complaint, whereupon the jailer would simply say "you know they're wearing body cameras nowadays, right?" This would cause said perp to drop the complaint, knowing that if it were all recorded, his story would most likely carry little-to-no water.

Re:Of course

[Tharkkun]

Why not? The officer on an "off" week is simply performing the habituated alternate behavior. Perhaps even the officers cognizant of things and simply applied what they learned, that is, when they're not being a douche they have a better day at work.

Or people see the body cam (and know the cars have front cameras) and know they can't file a bullshit complaint against an officer.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Which would only be relevant if blacks were only shot when suspected of a violent crime.

Re:Of course

[Tharkkun]

The police also know that they're participating in a study involving wearing these cameras and may have been on their best behavior because they knew that they were being observed. Maybe their superiors told them to be on their best behavior because the number of complaints against them was being closely investigated.

Maybe they were on their best behavior when not wearing the cameras because they wanted to spoil any correlation between their good behavior and wearing the cameras, but it was instead interpreted as the cameras having a more pervasive influence.

It's hard to properly blind the participants in this study, so it's hard to account for all of the unexpected influences.

Superiors? I'd say a notice went out to the entire country to stop being assholes or your name will be in the news. This study also occurred long before all these riots and BLM.

Re:Of course

[Tharkkun]

In fact, that would be the simplest way.

In order to believe that those not filed would have been mostly frivolous, it would mean that the would-be complainers would be very aware of the body cameras. I'd wager that the only party that is very aware of the body camera most of the time is the officer.

Most people aren't aware that a good portion of cops don't have body and dashboard cameras. People are starting to assume everyone is equipped with one.

Re:Of course

[JustSomeProgrammer]

Ahhh... sometimes I like to believe in the good of humanity as well.

Re: Of course

[Tharkkun]

"Now is where SJWs yell that % of criminal population is a 'racist statistic'."

What about the statistic that minorities are stopped, ticketes or incarcerated at much higher rates for the same non-violent offenses? Is that racist? Against whom?

If the city, town or state is a majority of minorities you're going to be hard pressed to find statistics that show Caucasians being stopped more than minorities. When they did the Ferguson study that said the Police department was targeting AA's they forget to include that African Americans were 70% of the town's population.

Re:Of course

[AutodidactLabrat]

Tell that to the dead

Re: Of course

[Viewsonic]

What a timeline to live in where fighting for social justice is frowned on.

Re:Of course

[Gravis Zero]

We've put cameras everywhere. People now routinely carry them in their pockets. We have not photographed Bigfoot. We have no video of aliens. The existence of the Loch Ness monster is not a proven fact.

Yeah, it's scared me and my buddies to much that we've become shut-ins and our alien friends took their prankster probing over to the next inhabited world.

Thanks a lot,
Mr. Foot

Re:Of course

[wisnoskij]

I think that is the point. The officers are in know enough know exactly when they are being recorded. And yet we do not see any statistical anomalies that show that they act differently. But all the criminals likely know is that some big body-cam roll out happened last year and everything is not being recorded. It is likely how everyone drives slower because their might be a cop around the next corner. In this situation, it is exactly because their is never any change that outcome that primary change must of been in the behavior of the criminals.

Re:Of course

[Khashishi]

Filtering out the psychos during application would work, except that the Stanford prison experiment showed us that even if you put psychologically healthy people in police roles, they get abusive.

Re:Of course

[Dread_ed]

You don't have to believe, you just have to draw eyes on the wall...

Wired
New Scientist
Scientific American

Re:Of course

[mikeiver1]

The vast majority of officers are doing their jobs with no illegal behavior. There is always going to be those bad actors in any department. The majority of the complaints against officers though is very likely to drop for a few simple reasons. The fact that the smarter bad actor officers that were skirting the law are cognizant of the chance of getting caught by said camera now modifying their behavior. The public, now aware that their interactions with officers as well are also being recorded, are not willing to take the chance that they will be found out to be reporting behavior by the officer that simply didn't happen. This is an almost daily happening for departments that have patrolling officers in the inner cities. Most are unfounded and are simply an attempt to get out of a ticket or an arrest. IE: They are trying to game the system. A third reason is that it is very likely that the officers are being far less proactive in their policing duties preferring to be dressed down for being less productive to being beefed, sued, or fired for even a minor infraction at this point. A fourth reason is that the public in these areas is initiating contact with law enforcement less often due to the irrational fear of possible police brutality now instilled in them by the press and their community leaders. Someone once said that "God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal" In this present day it is now the cameras making us equal.

Re:Of course

[AK Marc]

Police stop beating the shit out of innocent people when they are wearing cameras, so complaints go down.

But if you want to blame that on the innocent people being "fucking out of control" that's fine. Blaming the victim is standard for some people.

Re:Of course

[AK Marc]

The people already knew dash cams are there, and there's not a good correlation between those and civilian behavior, and the body cameras are not as obtrusive as you imply. Most people wouldn't see or notice them. They are just another bulge/lump on an officer's uniform.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but remember "the behavior" that changed is "people making complaints against police". This doesn't prove that the police's behavior changed, although it's circumstantially strong.

Re:Of course

[JoeMerchant]

Milgram was the best, all it takes is an authority figure telling someone to be a monster and 9/10 will comply. The Blue Line is a logical extension - it's better to be a monster than to rat out your buddies, especially those in charge.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

So... how exactly does the average perp (who isn't exactly a cyberpunk hacker-type dude) actually know if there was or wasn't a camera present? Probably wouldn't.

Most, but not all, of the body cameras are pretty obvious. People know what cameras look like.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that is the point. The officers are in know enough know exactly when they are being recorded. And yet we do not see any statistical anomalies that show that they act differently.

Other studies show that we do see a reduction in use of force incidents, which are recorded regardless of any complaint. So police are acting differently, either in not escalating encounters or not needing to escalate encounters (because people behave better around them).

But all the criminals likely know is that some big body-cam roll out happened last year and everything is not [sic] being recorded. It is likely how everyone drives slower because their [sic] might be a cop around the next corner. In this situation, it is exactly because their [sic] is never any change that outcome [??] that primary change must of been in the behavior of the criminals.

Your poorly expressed speculation is as good as mine, but it seems odd that the criminal communications network manages to inform all of the many drunks, hoodlums, and generalized ne'er-do-wells, but forgets to tell them that the camera is a big hulking box with a camera lens or a super-obvious camera on the side of their head.

Re:Of course

[aphelion_rock]

Likewise, UFO sightings also dropped by over 93% now that virtually everyone is carrying a camera in their phone.

It is amazing what real evidence can do.

Re:Of course

[hackwrench]

How does that suggest a shift away from the officers when the officers are the ones most cognizant of the change in the state of affairs?

Re:Of course

[hackwrench]

Except the complaints still went down when there was no camera. Also, the police officer would be the one most aware there was a camera at any given time.

Re:Of course

[hackwrench]

Except the behavior of everyone else changing is even more unlikely.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. They controlled for that, and more importantly, the big issues in the Ferguson report were the police and court systems other conduct. :www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

Says that 67% of the population had a disproportionate amount of arrests and charges, but even then, the specific conduct was troubling.

Re:Of course

[laurencetux]

which could be solved very quickly with a simple reg that no city would have the stones to make.

In any and all cases where a camera has been issued to the officer
1 the officer shall do a functional check of said camera before each shift and shall get the camera replaced if it does not function (to include a check of any and all storage devices) before leaving the issuing area.

2 if any complaints are filed or a reportable incident occurs and the resulting recording is missing or otherwise corrupt then the courts shall find for the civilian (and all materials belonging to the civilian shall be returned intact or replaced).

Im not sure if the language is correct exactly but no vid then
A the officer loses any case
B Free GOJF card for somebody that gets arrested

Re:Of course

[Areyoukiddingme]

Agreed. Very few people (police included) wake up and say "I want to be a jerk today, escalate lots of situations, get complaints filed against me, and be in a bad mood all day 'cos I didn't abuse someone enough."

Judging by US schools, I disagree. There are tens of thousands of people who do precisely that. I strongly doubt all of them stopped when they got a little older, either.

Re: Of course

[haruchai]

I see an AC has already responded to you but let me add a comment since I've recently found some reports about New York City's stop & frisk.

Data archives for 2003 - 2015 are at http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/h...

Out of 5 MILLION stops in ~12 years, 25% were young black men but they make up NOT EVEN TWO PERCENT of NYC's population.
The percentage of stops annually where the suspect was found to be innocent was never below 75% and usually above 85%

Re:Of course

[Z80a]

The cameras work both ways.
If the cops are being brutal, the camera catches it, and they're screwed, Now if people false report the cops, the cameras also catches it, and the false reporter is screwed.
It's kinda a Win-Win scenario here.

Re: Of course

[bestweasel]

So... how exactly does the average perp (who isn't exactly a cyberpunk hacker-type dude) actually know if there was or wasn't a camera present? Probably wouldn't.

The University of Cambridge press release (read that instead of the Techcrunch report) says:

Critically, researchers say these behaviour changes rely on cameras recording entire encounters, and officers issuing an early warning that the camera is on â" reminding all parties that the âdigital witnessâ(TM) is in play right from the start, and triggering the observer effect.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the Feds are stopping the use of private prisons, under Obama's presidency. What do you mean?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yeah. And then they drum the "We're fighting a war" rhetoric into them and have them train with Israeli police. These current-day institutions share a lot of the blame; they are called militarized for a reason.

Re:Of course

[TapeCutter]

Many people have difficulty "doing the right thing" while nobody is watching. This is why we invented God and body-cams, no behaviour change required, just make them believe they are being watched by someone more powerful than themselves and they will act accordingly.

Re:Of course

[0111 1110]

While I'll grant you that the data can be explained by competing theories, in this case only half the officers had cameras on. That certainly suggests that it's not limited to officer behavior.

Police rarely go into situations alone. If 50% of police are wearing cameras it often means that the situation in question is being recorded by someone. That may be enough of a deterrent to greatly reduce routine beatings and the resulting 'cover charges' at the very least. Those guys are addicted to violence but it isn't a literal addiction. They can go without it for a while until their little masochistic brains can figure out a way to continue their behavior with less risk. Never forget that police are mostly cowards. So it is not that hard to deter them with simple measures.

Very few people have the balls or are crazy enough to actively confront a police officer, especially in the US. Very, very few. And for that tiny percentage of crazy/violent people I don't think body cams are going to be a much greater discouragement than batons, tazers, pepper spray and a Glock with a hair trigger. I think we need a little common sense here.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's fair because I'm a racist.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

People are trying to paint this as black and white, as with everything else. In reality, both the police and the suspects probably have a hand in the statistics change. Sure, the officers are going to act proper now that they know video evidence may be used against them. However, now the suspects also cannot just claim mishandling/brutality/unprofessional behavior by the cops every time they are arrested. Until now, a great amount of claims were simply made up or grossly exaggerated. The cameras keep both parties in check.

Re: Of course

[pellik]

Maybe they are reacting to their coworkers having cameras even when they don't.

Re:Of course

[0111 1110]

The summary says "everyone" behaved better

Like when a rapist decides not to rape the girl wearing sexy clothes because he knows he will be recorded helps everyone 'behave better'.

Like when a lion is caged or tied up so he cannot chase the gazelle helps both the lion and the gazelle 'behave better'.

On the one hand you have a heavily armed, body armored group trained in the use of violence. On the other hand you often have a single individual with no weapons or training. A pack of wolves versus a single sheep. Hmm. Who should we give the credit to if the expected violence does not occur? I wonder.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The Stanford experiment only showed that if you put white, 18-25 year old, liberal university students in a position of authority then they become abusive.

Re: Of course

[0111 1110]

However, now the suspects also cannot just claim mishandling/brutality/unprofessional behavior by the cops every time they are arrested. Until now, a great amount of claims were simply made up or grossly exaggerated.

Citation? How do you know this? It seems implausible to me.

Re:Of course

[0111 1110]

Having the camera, makes the guy less defensive, as he knows if something does happen to him there will be evidence

Yeah. I am thinking this is not such a strong motivation for anyone who has had dealings with the police. Maybe he will get suspension with pay for shooting you in the face. Maybe if you are lucky it will be without pay. Although that seems unlikely.

Even if you are not killed all it really means is you may have a defense against false accusations and cover charges. People not afraid of the police usually haven't had much experience with them. Everyone else gives them a wide berth at all times. For good reason. They are dangerous. I'd sooner approach an angry rattlesnake than a cop in the US.

Re:Of course

[0111 1110]

The vast majority of officers are doing their jobs with no illegal behavior.

Do you personally know the 'vast majority of officers'? Or are you pulling that out of your ass?

Re: Of course

[0111 1110]

When we start seeing videos on YouTube of white people being tased to death, or shot way too many times or in the back or both, or being choked to death while being unarmed and non-hostile, then you can claim this has no racial component to it.

Actually most of the youtube videos I've seen have been of white people getting beaten or tazed. Like that 12 year old girl in Arizona or New Mexico or something getting tazered in the head a while back. The point actually penetrated her skull and punctured her brain.Just googled for it but there are so many similar cases it has been buried.

I did find an 8 year old girl who was tazered though and she wasn't black. But the most recent preteen tazered by our courageous police force is apparently a 12 year old black girl from St. Louis. Lucky our police have weapons or they would surely get wasted by preteen girls on a daily basis. In some places there just aren't enough black people to beat and murder. So they have to resort to beating/murdering white people too. Presumably not their first choice I'll admit, but I'm sure it still satisfies their bloodlust well enough and they go home well sated.

Re:Of course

[0111 1110]

I think it comes down to emotions. People want to feel safe from violent cops. So they simply choose to believe that only a tiny percentage of them are violent or dangerous without really knowing either way. Most of them have had zero contact with real life police and only know what they see on TV and in movies which has almost nothing to do with how cops behave in the real world. This is also one reason jurists tend to choose the word of a cop over their victim when there is no evidence either way. They want to believe that most cops will not lie in court. So they do believe it. It's like magic.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Because bullshit complaints against officers have been a rampant problem in the USA until now, far outweighing the problem of police behaving badly.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Several years ago, a police officer stopped a kid who was driving illegally (I don't remember what caused the cop to pull him over). The kid was driving without a license. The cop went with the kid to an apartment building the kid claimed as his residence, so he could get his license to show the cop. (i.e. the cop was being nice, and not just writing a ticket or hauling the kid in.) The kid fought with the cop in the foyer outside my brother's apartment, pulled the cop's gun and killed him with it.

There are a lot of questions about the cop's behavior in that story, but the bottom line is that cops have a valid concern if they feel that anyone who attacks them should be considered armed.

Re: Of course

[Raenex]

That's because it's not social justice, it's social "justice" based on the Oppression Olympics, a victimhood mentality, and identity politics. It's not based in facts or true justice.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't. It's circumstantial evidence that frivolous complaints are reduced.

Re:Of course

[Big Hairy Ian]

Another possibility is that the public unsure as to whether the police were camered or not decided not to risk further jail time and behave themselves. I'm not saying that it's not the police's behavior just that it takes two to tango also these were British cops and though they by no means have a spotless record they are amongst the most highly regarded and reputable police forces in the world.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

I see an AC has already responded to you but let me add a comment since I've recently found some reports about New York City's stop & frisk.

Data archives for 2003 - 2015 are at http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/h...

Out of 5 MILLION stops in ~12 years, 25% were young black men but they make up NOT EVEN TWO PERCENT of NYC's population.
The percentage of stops annually where the suspect was found to be innocent was never below 75% and usually above 85%

Choosing to stop more black men is not racist. As stated above, why wouldn't you stop someone (whatever race/gender/age) who is more likely to be guilty?

Re: Of course

[strikethree]

Regardless of the results, stop & frisk is blatantly unconstitutional. Same with DUI checkpoints.

Very "In Soviet Russia" of them.

Re:Of course

[Bender0x7D1]

Vampires wouldn't show up on camera. So, maybe the reason we don't see big foot is a vampire, feeling bad about feeding on humans, fed on big foot and turned him into a vampire.

Just sayin'...

Re: Of course

[haruchai]

Even for an AC this comment is stupid. Deciding that someone is "more guilty" based on their appearance or ethnicity is the FUCKING DEFINITION OF RACAIL PROFILING.
Which is ......wait...for...it..RACIST

Also

Re:Of course

[Joce640k]

So you don't think that just perhaps the officers wearing cameras were behaving better knowing they were being recorded?

It seems to me that to place all of the blame on one side is rather narrow minded of you.

Perhaps the public were better behaved, too. Knowing they were on camera.

Re: Of course

[haruchai]

GAH, I let my passion overwhelm my proofreading. Should be RACIAL not RACAIL

Re:Of course

[IAmRenegadeX]

What you're describing might just be the best kind of fornication.

Re: Of course

[HornWumpus]

By that argument; Police shouldn't stop white bread suburban kids going into bad neighborhoods to buy drugs?

That is racial profiling too.

Re:Of course

[mikeiver1]

Having both family and friends in law enforcement as well as having worked in law enforcement for a short while I had extensive interaction with all manner of officers. There were a couple of sketchy officers but every other was a good man or woman and did a conscientious job. I have also been on the receiving end of the cops more times than I care to remember as a young man and not but a couple of times did they stray from the letter of the law in their dealings with me. So I would say that I have a better than average view into those doing the job, from both sides. So no that is not from "my ass" The tone of your response would lead me to believe that you think that the vast majority of those in law enforcement are on the take and out to do illegal stuff. If that is your assertion are you simply pulling that out of your ass?

Re: Of course

[haruchai]

By that argument; Police shouldn't stop white bread suburban kids going into bad neighborhoods to buy drugs?

That is racial profiling too.

What year are you living in? There have been drug dealers in the suburbs and even upscale areas of every city I've lived in since 1985.
Are there no black, brown or Asian kids going into your drug-fueled bad 'hoods to buy dope or are the cops simply assuming that the non-white kids all live there?

Re:Of course

[0111 1110]

I hadn't had much contact with US law enforcement (just speeding tickets) until I got stopped at a DUI roadblock one night. I was not drunk. I rarely drink. Scored 0.00% 5 times in a row when they tested me at the station. So they had to drop that charge at least.

Basically I made some comment about it being a violation of my rights to have to be detained by them etc. That it was wrong. That they were bad people for doing it. I was polite about it though just speaking conversationally as if they were human beings like me. A cop swore at me for this and I swore back at him. Then he proceeded to beat me and choke me nearly to death in front of at least 10-15 other officers. The only reason I am alive is because one of the 'not so bad apples' pulled the maniac off of me so that I could breathe again. After I had been saved from death and was lying in a bloody mess with my face smashed into the gravel the cop who beat me started going over his 'story' with another cop. They did this not in whispers, but in loud voices that not only I could hear but the other 15 or so cops who were there including the guy in charge of the whole operation. So I guess making up stories to back 'cover charges' and justify beatings and attempted murder were routine to most of them. They charged me with assault and battery against a police officer, assault with a deadly weapon (what weapon?) and many other so called 'cover charges'. I guess I was lucky they didn't actually plant a gun or knife in my car or something to make the 'deadly weapon' more plausible..

It is true that one of those cops saved my life (the only time a cop has ever done something helpful for me in any way), but he and all those other guys went along with the "bad" cop and not a single cop there questioned what happened in any way or seemed at all disturbed by the situation. I was badly injured and nearly killed for saying, "fuck you" and then falsely charged with serious crimes and not a single one of the 20-30 officers made any attempt to amend the situation or cared even the slightest about what happened. I think most cops would be on the side of the cop who beat me because I disrespected him.

They are just evil people. I remember a Star Trek: TNG episode with this black blob that was supposed to be all of the condensed bad/evil from an entire society that was sloughed off and made into a separate thing. That is like what American cops are for our species: the lowest and most evil of all human beings. They would have become criminals except that they are too cowardly, too afraid of going to jail for their thirst for violence if they had no badge to hide behind. Some also have parents who were cops. So they choose that path.

I know the way bullies think very well because I grew up with one as a child. I have a kind of bullydar. It's like some combination of anger, sadism, sociopathy, and deep cruelty. My own bully as a child used to put firecrackers in frogs asses or mouths and blow them up. Great fun for that kind of person. Every cop that *I* have met in my life were bullies. Every single one. In the US they always seem to have that personality type: tough guy / thug / bully. Cops in most other countries are often just normal people doing a job to make money. They aren't out there to prove how tough they are or to satisfy their bloodlust. It's just a job to them. In the US being a cop is like a whole lifestyle that has a lot more in common with being a gang member than anything else, but unlike those gang members there are no limits at all on their actions. They are not only above the law, but they have no sense of right or wrong, no moral center. No compassion or empathy. And a deep hatred of all 'civilians'. Most of them are very stupid too. Luckily the cop who attacked me was too stupid to invent a coherent and consistent story. I don't even really see them as human beings anymore.

Now probably most cops would not go as far as that crazy one who flipped out and tried to kill a person because they dared to say 'fuck you' to him, but at

Re: Of course

[HornWumpus]

And once in awhile, to keep up price, the supply 'runs out' in the burbs. They all run to the street dealers in the ghetto, where 'the market' is healthy.

Stopping the drug traffic is still a common request of actual people who have to live in bad neighborhoods. In practice that means stopping cars from outside the neighborhood, particularly dumb ass, white bread kids.

'White bread' comes in all colors these days, even if black or tan, the peer group is mostly white.

Re:Of course

[mikeiver1]

Interesting how you are able to recall this with such clarity after getting your ass kicked. I suspect that you recall this through more than a little bit of bias and have twisted it to suit your point of the argument. It is also interesting that you, like so many others stopped at sobriety check points, question the legal validity of said stops. Also, I doubt that you were "conversational" in your protestations. Having been through more than a few of these check points the cops were never assholes. The cops simply did what they needed to do because morons can't get it through their heads that drinking and then driving kills others and that they are basically selfish fucking assholes for doing it. I have met more than a few bad cops in my many interactions with them. Every time I remained calm and respectful regardless of their inappropriate attitude or actions. Two things happened in all the interactions. One, they calmed down and started to act more rationally. Two, they generally either reduced the infraction or charges or outright let me go with a simple warning or admonishment to deal with my issues ASAP or suffer the consequences if they stopped me again. In a number of cases I was in the car with cuffs on. NEVER EVER did I get pissed or mouthy with them. He escalated, you responded and escalated, you got your ass kicked and charged. Cause and effect. What happened to you is totally fucked up and wrong but it happened. The sad part is that all interactions you have with cops now and in the future are tainted by this and all cops are bad no mater what. Good luck with that in the future, it will not serve you to well. This will all be academic in the future as police departments and police unions are forced to implement body cams.

Re:Of course

[0111 1110]

>I suspect that you recall this through more than a little bit of bias and have twisted it to suit your point of the argument

Yes you do. For emotional reasons rather than logical ones. This is what you *want* to believe because it makes you feel better to not think badly of American police. Makes you feel safer and less in danger for your life when you have interactions with them.

Of course it already seems like in interactions with them you treat them as if they are dangerous and mentally unstable gang members with itchy trigger fingers. That's good. Because that is indeed exactly what they are.

>It is also interesting that you, like so many others stopped at sobriety check points, question the legal validity of said stops.

They *are* illegal in 5 US states, but I don't and have not questioned their *legality*. What I questioned was their morality and their constitutionality and indeed such a violation of human rights is consistent with neither.

>Also, I doubt that you were "conversational" in your protestations.

Yes I know. I've met a lot of people like you over the years. It's why I took a plea bargain despite badly wanting to tear apart the cops ridiculous, illogical, and inconsistent story at least some of which I could *prove* was a lie. In any account of events people like you will *always* choose to believe the cops side of the story. Why? Again for emotional reasons. It makes you feel better. Safer. Otherwise you'd have to accept that there are a significant number of cops who are liars and very bad people.

>Having been through more than a few of these check points the cops were never assholes.

Because in your view *no* cops are assholes. Am I right?

>Every time I remained calm and respectful regardless of their inappropriate attitude or actions.

What inappropriate attitude or actions? I thought they weren't assholes.

>One, they calmed down and started to act more rationally.

So they were acting irrationally? Really. I find that so surprising. I thought cops were perfect human beings which is why you always choose to believe their story.

>Two, they generally either reduced the infraction or charges or outright let me go with a simple warning or admonishment to deal with my issues

Did you miss the part where I said, "Fuck you!" quietly but with an angry voice? He *was* provoked, but his overreaction (attempted murder and then false charges) was impressive. Good luck calming a cop down after saying 'fuck you' right to his face. Maybe you are talking about speeding tickets or something.

>NEVER EVER did I get pissed or mouthy with them.

You would not get angry if a cop swore at you for complaining about something? As far as being mouthy yes most people aren't mouthy with the police because they are afraid of them. I was afraid of them as well, but it just got me so mad that he could swear at me like that and that I was not allowed to swear back. Like he is a higher class of citizen. He can verbally abuse me, but I am not allowed to verbally abuse him back?

>He escalated, you responded and escalated

I was out driving to get a pizza. They stopped me and detained me for no reason other than the fact that I refused to answer their stupid questions. I was complaining about how wrong these roadblocks are and he escalated by saying something like, "Shut up you asshole. Then I escalated by saying, 'fuck you'. Then he escalated by attempting to kill me. That last escalation is what I have a problem with. Only a violent psychopath who thinks he can get away with anything would actually do that. It's just crazy. In fact it is so crazy that I think a lot of people would choose not to believe my story. Another reason I took a plea deal.

The whole system of beating + cover charges works quite well really. Otherwise I may have complained about getting beaten for swearing at the cop. Swearing is 100% legal. Beating people up is not. I say 'may have' because complaining about a cop who is

Re:Of course

[0111 1110]

Btw 'getting your ass kicked' seems to imply that it was some kind of fair fight and I lost it. Are you really thinking of it as a fight? Not that I don't think he could have won in a fair fight. He was like 6' 3" 250 lbs and had at least some fighting and combat experience and I was a 5' 6" 140 lb geek with almost no fighting experience. I think I had actually been writing code that night and was getting a pizza afterward. But calling it a fight is ridiculous. I *knew* I couldn't fight back. I wanted to but I knew that if I did I really would be charged with assault against a police officer and god knows what else. So I didn't try to defend myself or 'resist' until it was too late and I was pinned under a 250 lb guy unable to breath or even speak before being asphyxiated. And indeed that's how it would have probably ended if the other cop had not pulled him off of me. BTW if this were just a made up story to make cops look bad because I hate them why would I include that last part? That seems to show that at least some cops (say 1 out 15 or so) are willing to actually intervene to stop a murder.

Re:Of course

[mikeiver1]

Well it seems that you are the one person in all of the united states that has had nothing but bad interaction with every one the the cops you have been unfortunate enough to meet. Taking this into consideration I will form my opinions about your inter personal skills and leave it at that. On second thought I think it necessary that i spell it out for you. If every person you meet in a uniform is an asshole from the very start then guess what ASSHOLE! That's right ASSHOLE, you are the ASSHOLE!!! I on the other hand have had both good and bad interactions with cops over the years. I also recognize that the job they carry out involves interaction with the bottom 10% of the population. Generally those that would be referred to as the dregs of society. Persons that are criminals and/or just have bad attitudes when forced to act in a manner counter to their own selfish interest and comply to the laws in the state they live in. This I suspect is the category you may fall under if I am generous. I would challenge you to to spend one year in doing their job, dealing with the shit they have to take day in and day out from smart ass ASSHOLES just like you. Dealing with hardened criminals, child molesters, rapists, and spouse abusers. At the end of it come out with less of an attitude than most of them have after a decade or two of the job. Cops don't just up and out of the blue go all shit house crazy like you claim happened to you. In fact I am damned sure that you were not conversational with them before, during, or after. A man does not just go off like you said if you simply stated in a non confrontational manner that you think they are carrying out an illegal action. I call bullshit to your story and the lead up to you getting your ass handed to you. The one thing I am very sure of though is that you will not get in the face of a cop with that "Joe Q Public attitude" again.

Score for thwarting frivolous complaints!

[Anonymous Coward]

Score for thwarting frivolous complaints! I love body cameras.

Re:Score for thwarting frivolous complaints!

[CaptnCrud]

Pretty much what I was thinking. Fewer complaints because they know they would be in the wrong....

Re:Score for thwarting frivolous complaints!

[HornWumpus]

The first time this statistic was calculated (for some rich CA coastal town) the 'cop suckers' claimed the same thing. Problem was: they hadn't told anybody but the cops.

Correlation?

[dunnomattic]

When I saw this earlier, I wondered if it's A) the small group of inherently bad cops curbing their bad behavior now that they are being monitored; or B) fewer [perceived] opportunities for dishonestly reported complaints. I imagine it is some combination of the two.

Re:Correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm betting more on the police behaving better, the #1 factor that deters crime is the perceived likelihood of getting caught.

Re:Correlation?

[dunnomattic]

I also wonder if this helps to improve overall morale, which I believe has been generally abysmal for the last three years. I suspect conscientious officers not only bear the mental burdens of their own actions, but of their fellow officers as well. Knowing that any officer in their department making a visibly questionable arrest or using excessive/deadly force can bring a town to its knees and undo any good the collective department has done to that point has got to be discouraging. A boost in morale can only do good things, both for the officers and the communities they police.

Re:Correlation?

[Nethemas the Great]

I find it harder to accept the opposite side, that the citizen having decides they can't misbehave and/or complain. The first assumption being that they citizens even know that cop is wearing a cam. It's not at all obvious to someone unfamiliar which such devices that that's what it is. Two it doesn't reasonably allow for the >50% drop in reports since only half the cops are wearing them at any given time.

Re:Correlation?

[cyberchondriac]

I think it's a bit of both as well.. but since the reports were also lowered where/when certain cops didn't wear cameras (and they knew they weren't), it's possible that perps weren't sure if they were being recorded or not, and acted more civilized, where as a cop without a camera would carry on as always. So probably fewer false complaints, mostly, and the handful of whatever bad cops there are conducting themselves better.

Re:Correlation?

[Baloroth]

Actually, both of them make sense together, given what you said. Citizens (particularly those likely to misbehave or file complaints) may have heard that officers in their district are wearing cameras, but don't know which cops are wearing them, so they behave as if all cops they encounter are. The cops, OTOH, always know when they are wearing a camera, so such a great drop in complaints makes less sense from their side. Most likely, of course, it's a combination of factors.

Re:Correlation?

[rlp]

Spoke to a local police chief. When someone wants to file a complaint, he offers to review the patrol car / body cam video with them. If its a legit complaint, he wants to see the video. If not, the offer to review the video usually causes the complaint to be withdrawn.

Re:Correlation?

[BuckaBooBob]

You should be able to make a good guess whats going when police start to put up the hoods of their cars when they stop someone to block the dashcam like the cops in Virginia.. Search for Police Using Car Hoods To Block Dash Cam and watch some of that... those cops should be suspended at minimum...

Re:Correlation?

[JoeMerchant]

Since the cameras were only worn half the time, fewer opportunities for dishonestly reported complaints could only result in a (maximum) 50% decline in complaints, not 90%.

Re:Correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should search for this on snopes.

Re:Correlation?

[Kjella]

I find it harder to accept the opposite side, that the citizen having decides they can't misbehave and/or complain. The first assumption being that they citizens even know that cop is wearing a cam. It's not at all obvious to someone unfamiliar which such devices that that's what it is. Two it doesn't reasonably allow for the >50% drop in reports since only half the cops are wearing them at any given time.

You're assuming that a cop wouldn't know when a complaint is likely to be filed, I doubt it's often that cops that back to the station and go "Lolwut I got a complaint, WTF?" I expect that almost all those who allege abuse will complain on the spot and threaten to report it. And a whole lot of potential complaints will go away by replying "Go right ahead sir, I have it all on camera including you giving me the finger and saying unkind things about my mother." and most will figure out they maybe don't actually have that good a case after all and that trying to provoke or escalate the situation further would be stupid. That it cuts way down on complaints may or may not be a good indicator of whether actual abuse has changed. For that I'd probably rather do an anonymous poll of whether people self-report being abused by the police lately.

Re:Correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Go right ahead sir, I have it all on camera including you giving me the finger and saying unkind things about my mother." and most will figure out they maybe don't actually have that good a case after all and that trying to provoke or escalate the situation further would be stupid.

If I insult a police officer's mother and the officer in turn uses violence against me, the police officer should still be charged with assault. After all, the same would hold true if the "victim" of my verbal abuse was not an officer.

Re:Correlation?

[Nikkos]

Oh please. http://www.snopes.com/police-p...

Who needs paid agitprop when idiots do a fine job already.

Re:Correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you ask him what we're supposed to think when the video isn't available from the police?

What did he say about police who try to shut down recording of their actions?

Re:Correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably is a combination.
But my guess would be it's mostly the cops knowing they can't get away with as much shit.

Re:Correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an asshole who doesn't read the article.

Re:Correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think probably both as well.

Think about a dirty cop. He would just try to hide it anyway but in obvious situations would curb their usual behavior.

For someone doing the complaint it could be as much as 'i want to complain. Ok lets bring up the video. oh dont want to do that so much anymore'.

Would be interesting to measure the second one as it would point out the gap that the first one exists.

Re:Correlation?

[mark-t]

Police that shut down their own recording would have nothing to gain by doing so... since any they would have no verifiable defense even if they were falsely accused of doing something wrong.

Re:Correlation?

[Khashishi]

Think about it. Cops know about the cameras and know that they are being observed more closely as a part of a study. Suspects probably don't know about the change, unless the cops explicitly point it out to them.
And it's not a small group of cops. It's every cop curbing their bad behavior.

Re:Correlation?

[Khashishi]

I'd like to ask them a few questions. What fraction of complaints get withdrawn? What fraction of complaints correspond to cases that the camera was turned off or poorly angled?

Re:Correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a time saver on everyone's part..

Re:Correlation?

[Razed By TV]

Police that shut down their own recording would have nothing to gain by doing so... since any they would have no verifiable defense even if they were falsely accused of doing something wrong.

You mean other than avoiding the creation of evidence of wrongdoing, if they were in fact doing something wrong?

Re:Correlation?

[mark-t]

Statistically, it is more likely that recordings made by a police officer would vindicate him in the event of a wrongful accusation than an independent recording would condemn him for a deserved one.

There are bad cops, I know that... but the majority are just doing their job. I know about a dozen cops personally, all of whom are fine individuals, and have met probably about a hundred or so, and could probably count on one hand the number of assholes among them.

Re:Correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you knew half of them wore cameras but not which ones, would you file false complaints against cops at all?

Re:Correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

If its a legit complaint, he wants to see the video. If not, the offer to review the video usually causes the complaint to be withdrawn.

Or it could be seen as an intimidation tactic. Sure, review the video with us. We'll try to show/explain to you why your face being ground into the curb wasn't excessive force. And now that we know we screwed up by watching the tape, we'll just make sure to put it on this shelf where we won't lose it. Oops. We lost it. It's a good thing judges weigh civilian testimony as equal to that of police, right comrade?

Re:Correlation?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Actually, both of them make sense together, given what you said. Citizens (particularly those likely to misbehave or file complaints) may have heard that officers in their district are wearing cameras, but don't know which cops are wearing them, so they behave as if all cops they encounter are. The cops, OTOH, always know when they are wearing a camera, so such a great drop in complaints makes less sense from their side. Most likely, of course, it's a combination of factors.

And here's another factor -- what about the massive media coverage of cops' abuses caught on camera -- frequently by bystanders --- in the past couple years? I couldn't find a link to the actual study in TFA, so did they also examine complaint trends in places that did NOT institute body cameras at all?

Seemingly every other week in the past few years there's been massive coverage of some abuse of cops caught on camera killing or injuring some unarmed person... it may be that such acts were caught on camera by bystanders or random cameras around before, but now such incidents often get national or even international attention.

If I were a "bad" cop who likes to beat people up or whatever, knowing that I could become the target of international media attention if a random bystander happens to get out a phone... well, it might cause me to think about altering my behavior in most circumstances.

What we really need to know is -- did the incidence of complaints against police also drop (even somewhat) in places which didn't have a massive body camera rollout? I would assume that if this were true, it wouldn't be as significant a drop, but you need to examine a trend in context.

Re:Correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know the reason. A friend of mine work for a security company and they have cameras on all the time now. People yell and scream that they are going to report them and they reply "Go right a head, I have it all on camera." Then people do not file a report. When assholes who would normally do a false complaint against the guard knows that they are on film they do not.

Re:Correlation?

[DarthVain]

I expect it is both. Particularly in this day in age where everyone has a camera and can shoot a video.

Body cameras are as much for police to protect themselves from biased video. When both sides are taping it is hard to only show your "side" of the confrontation.

There was an example in Canada a year or so ago where a Native individual was protesting at a public military funeral. His comrades showed him being taken down forcibly by police. He says he was simply politely waving his flag in protest. Of course the video doesn't show the lead up to the police action, only the result. Leaving you with only one side of the story. Personally I doubt that is what actually occurred, however that is all the public gets to see, and what the police have to then justify...

Re:Correlation?

[WolfgangVL]

I was recently pulled over for a minor traffic infraction. The very first thing the officer did was say something along the lines of "you are being audio and video recorded" The camera was about the size of a dixie-cup, centered on his chest, and was of a flat black color. VERY hard to miss. There was absolutely no chance of me not understanding what was going on. After my warning (which had nothing to do with my skin color and everything to do with my professorial and respectful attitude) I began to wonder, what would happen if I told him I did NOT understand that I was being recorded, or had I made it known that I did NOT consent to the audio-video recording of our interaction. Likely I would have gotten a tough shit comment and ticket, but its interesting to consider....

My point is, it is very hard to miss the cameras. They are quite obvious, and at least the local LEO in Auburn, WA are making citizens aware of their use as the first order of business. YMMV.

Re:Correlation?

[martinfb]

I'll go with both.

Based my general experience with fellow humans, one might hypothesize that folks are more afraid of Big Brother than the ever present eye of Karma.

When will we all realize that it benefits EVERYONE to be honest and positive?!

Re: Correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but the police don't just cut off their own recording, mark-t, they have stopped others from doing so.

Hence my question.

There's also this law in North Carolina that is supposed to block the release of recordings in some way.

Re:Correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wold have thought it made MORE sense for the cops to be the ones doing so. Remember, they no longer get plausible deniability or the benefit of the doubt, and please note that OTHER cops are wearing the cams too, and the bad coppers know that too.

Re:Correlation?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

That depends - if two cops pull me over and only one has a camera, that's still 50% usage. If the cops are primarily working in pairs, 50% usage could still produce a much larger drop in dishonest complaints.

Re:Correlation?

[JoeMerchant]

That depends - if two cops pull me over and only one has a camera, that's still 50% usage. If the cops are primarily working in pairs, 50% usage could still produce a much larger drop in dishonest complaints.

Yes, with random distribution as high as 75%. Also, when cops in pairs pull people over, one is usually the "lead" with the suspect, the other generally hangs back and is not as observable for suspects to notice things like a body-cam.

Re:Correlation?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

True. But there's no particular reason to think it would be a random distribution; I expect most departments that don't have enough cameras for their whole force would send out pairs, one with (the lead) and one without (who would be in the car still, where there's the dash cam anyway). I don't think fewer opportunities for dishonest complaints is the only reason - there are undoubtedly cops who are behaving better now they're being recorded. But in theory, if police departments are being sensible, body cams on even 50% of cops could result in a much larger decrease in dishonest complaints.

Re:Correlation?

[JoeMerchant]

What we really need is total damned Orwellian observation of EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME, combined with a serious relaxation of over-the-top prohibitions on things that many people do all the time without hurting anyone (or, even without hurting anyone else, or even without hurting anyone without their expressed consent...)

Oh, Democracy...

[mi]

Police cameras — good. Red-light cameras — bad...

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[GrumpySteen]

I think you mean "Oh, Science..."

The majority of studies show that accident rates go up, not down, when red-light cameras are put in place. Eliminating red-light cameras is the logical response.

This study shows that complaints go down, not up, when police use body cameras. The logical response would be to continue using body cameras and continue studying the results to verify that the effect isn't temporary or isolated.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because cameras are good at improving human accountability. Because traffic violations are a liability-only sort of infraction, it's difficult to defend against that type of prosecution, and red light cameras can be abused if they are set to be overly sensitive to infractions and especially if yellow light duration is low or unpredictable.

I support police officers wearing cameras, but I do not support automated traffic justice, primarily because there are not enough checks and balances in place to ensure such automation is not completely abused by cities feeling the budgetary pinch.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Nethemas the Great]

Red-light cameras are a tool for revenue generation with a growing body of evidence of their abuse. Police body cams however are supposed to be an impartial witness.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[mi]

The majority of studies show that accident rates go up, not down, when red-light cameras are put in place

Citation missing.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[mi]

Red-light cameras are a tool for revenue generation

Irrelevant. If they fight what needs fighting — and do it cheaper than other methods — than we should be using them.

growing body of evidence of their abuse

Citation missing.

Police body cams however are supposed to be an impartial witness.

All cameras are impartial.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[sjames]

As is yours.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anecdotally, they tend to reduce the yellow light time to maximize revenue.

And that's the thing: one item is put in place for fundraising, the other is for having an unbiased (or less biased anyways) account of what happened when someone complains about police behavior.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[starless]

The majority of studies show that accident rates go up, not down, when red-light cameras are put in place.

Accident rates may go up (or stay the same) but death rates go down.
The increase in accidents is less dangerous relatively slow speed rear end collisions, while
side on higher speed, and so more deadly, rates go down.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/public...

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[mi]

As is yours.

Up yours. Which of my claims do wish to see substantiated with a citation?

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Nethemas the Great]

Citation? start here. While not being particularly effective at modifying driver behavior (see aforementioned link), they are also not impartial. While they may capture a vehicle and it's operator (maybe) in the middle of a crossing, they do not provide the context. They do not make the observation that the city rigged the yellow lights to be impractically short, they do not even make the observation that the light was in fact red prior to the driver entering the intersection.

This is in contrast to a police body cam which records the video and audio of a police encounter from start to conclusion providing full and usually easy to understand context.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can start by citing a peer reviewed journal study showing why this has anything to do with a democratic form of government. Then two more proving that the same people have a subjective opinion for red light cameras and police cameras in a different direction. Finally cite one that shows this is an illogical position to take.

Ball is in your court buttercup.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[sjames]

Your implicit claim that accident rates remain the same or go down when red light cameras are used.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[number6x]

Not the OP, but here is a citation.

However, I would say the jury is still out as this is a small effect and is one study. It looks like they reduce head on and head to side crashes that are caused when a car runs a red light, but they increase or do not effect rear end crashes when a lead car stops, but a following car does not stop. The head on and head to side crashes are deadlier than the rear end crashes (insert pinto, corsair and Kardashian jokes here).

You can also find studies, on the sites of red-light camera suppliers, that say red light cameras reduce accidents and that tax payers should support the red light camera industry with unlimited funding. Think of the children.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here ya go

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not when they come with a reprogrammed yellow light (illegally low in fact in the places where it's been done), take the shot early [here's a citation for you: "Studies have shown that 38% of violations occur within 0.25 seconds of the light turning red and 79% within one second. A few red light camera systems allow a "grace period" of up to half a second for drivers who pass through the intersection just as the light turns red". The image is taken even if your crossing was still legal], or are set to pretend everyone is going five miles faster than they were at random intervals

  It's also not impartial when the date it's recorded and "mailed" and the date it's actually sent to you and received ensure you're dangerously close to being "too late" to try and contest it - if you even *can*.

They're also not impartial when only one side gets the footage, and can then decide to keep it, alter it or destroy it in order to sustain whatever argument they wish to sustain most.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[PopeRatzo]

Citation missing.

I can help with that:

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/s...

And here are links to the actual studies (11 of which are peer-reviewed).

https://www.motorists.org/issu...

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[bjdevil66]

Troll alert. This is apples and rotten oranges...

These body cameras are intrusive and over the top when it comes to personal privacy, but if you believe the news reports coming out of police departments, cops actually like them after having to wear them for a while. No more BS, "he said/she said" issues; And I'm sure that cops love not having to deal with paperwork over unfounded cop complaints.

OTOH, red light cameras (and speed cameras) were put in place as a "sin tax" revenue grab by government officials/councilmen/legislators that usually had personal vendettas against rude/aggressive drivers. Those naive officials were easy prey for the real bandits - companies like ATS and Redflex, whose CEO was bribing city officials to get the revenue generators installed in as many places as possible.

Body cameras: Enormous drop in police complaints, and both sides like the extra clarity they provide to litigious and/or life or death situations. Red light cameras: mixed safety results, bogged-down municipal courts, confusion, outright corruption, and even murder generation.

Of course these days, who cares about facts. Perception is reality...

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[mi]

Citation? start here [lmgtfy.com].

Sorry, that's not evidence of abuse. There is evidence of people — demos (in Greek) — unhappy with the cameras. Proving abuse is much harder.

Moreover, the people receiving fines — and a camera can issue many more tickets than a police officer — would be most unhappy without any abuse whatsoever. A perfectly functional red-light camera, operated in full accordance with rules and laws, would be a source of much unhappiness anyway.

They do not make the observation that the city rigged the yellow lights to be impractically short

A city could do that without a camera. Indeed, there are credible reports of cities rigging speed-limits that way — some more outrageous than others. Small-town governments always had an incentive to prosecute out-of-town folks for every infraction — for such drivers do not vote in local elections — while letting the locals through with a warning or without even being stopped.

Cameras — too stupid (or "impartial") to distinguish — interfered with that approach, fining locals, who represent the majority of drivers, along with out-of-towners and -staters. And that is, most likely, why they've been pulled back... Hence my blaming of Democracy.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

" Which of my claims do wish to see substantiated with a citation?"

The claim that a citation is need, in 2016, when Google is at your fingertips.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[mi]

Your implicit claim that accident rates remain the same or go down when red light cameras are used.

If we take your approach towards the burden of proof, any defendant rejecting his guilt would have to present evidence of his innocence.

Thus your approach is incorrect. Fail.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Jaime2]

This makes no sense. The most dangerous red light violations are the ones where the runner is totally oblivious to the traffic light (sleeping, drunk, talking to a passenger, etc). A camera wouldn't help under those circumstances. Red light cameras only change behavior in those cases where the driver sees running as a choice - during the first few seconds or when there is obviously no one coming on the cross street. These aren't the dangerous cases.

On the other hand, red light cameras increase rear-end collisions at lights. http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[sjames]

This isn't a criminal trial.

I'm guessing you have no evidence whatsoever to support your side. You may even know it.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[mi]

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/study-red-light-cameras-ineffective-cause-more-accidents

From your link:

the authors of the study found a statistically significant, but still smaller, reduction in angle and turning injury crashes by 15 percent, as well as 'a statistically significant increase of 22 percent in rear-end injury collisions.

In other words, the cameras reduced the number of violations they were meant to reduce by 15%.

They also made a different violation — failure to keep safe distance — more dangerous. But they didn't cause anybody to drive too close — I'm not sure, it is fair to blame cameras for that. People would hit the breaks (increasing the danger of being rear-ended) by seeing a live officer just as well, there is nothing camera-specific about these findings.

Once again, if running a red light is something worth fighting, then we should be fighting it. If such fights ought to be weighted against the risk of other problems — let's acknowledge that and adjust our laws to reflect it.

And here are links to the actual studies

All appear to suffer from the same problem — blaming cameras for consequences of drivers' behavior...

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[mi]

government officials/councilmen/legislators that usually had personal vendettas against rude/aggressive drivers

This makes no sense at all. Red light cameras don't fight rudeness or aggressiveness, whoever (dis)likes it. They fight illegal activity.

both sides like the extra clarity

That's exactly why I blame Democracy. Although objectively traffic cameras aren't any worse than an equal number of police officers would've been, we the people hate them for their efficiency and wanted them removed so that we don't get caught quite so often. We do like police body-cameras, hence those get wider and wider spread.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

> This makes no sense.

It does if the proportion of red lights run by people totally oblivious is small.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[PopeRatzo]

in other words, the cameras reduced the number of violations they were meant to reduce by 15%.

Yes, and increased the number of rear-end accidents by 22% which is what this entire argument is about.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

One of you was making a claim without backing it up with evidence. The other was not making a claim and so did not require evidence to be presented.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation? start here [lmgtfy.com].

Sorry, that's not evidence of abuse.

You didn't look very hard.

Chicago deliberately reduced the length of their yellow lights to generate more revenue. [fivethirtyeight.com]

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[mi]

This isn't a criminal trial.

The rules of the debate are the same — whoever is making an affirmative statement is "on the hook" to substantiate it, when challenged. Here is an example of this common-sense rule codified.

you have no evidence whatsoever to support your side

I carefully craft my posts to avoid making statements that may require substantiation I would be too lazy to provide. I wish, more people followed that principle...

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[mi]

Do try — in the future — to finish reading the earlier post before replying to it.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[sjames]

My only claim is that he didn't provide a cite. Look at the names on the posts. My citation is this very thread :-)

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[sjames]

And the affirmative claim (implied) is that there is some sort of hypocracy to supporting police body cameras but opposing red light cameras.

So it is your burden to show that they are substantially similar in effect such that one should support both or neither.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[clovis]

I think you mean "Oh, Science..."

The majority of studies show that accident rates go up, not down, when red-light cameras are put in place. Eliminating red-light cameras is the logical response.

This study shows that complaints go down, not up, when police use body cameras. The logical response would be to continue using body cameras and continue studying the results to verify that the effect isn't temporary or isolated.

True, and those same studies show that the kind of accidents change when red-light cameras are introduced. We've gone over this many times.
When red-light cameras are emplaced the number of rear-end accidents go up and T-bone accidents go down. The net effect is that the number of crashes with injuries goes down and especially down is the number of deaths. So it matters what number you pick from the study to look at. I happen to think the number of serious injuries and deaths is more important than the number of broken tail-lights.
http://www.iihs.org/frontend/i...

As for the complaints against police, the actual study is at http://cjb.sagepub.com/content... and it contains many self-criticisms. It should be mentioned that the police are required (in these studies) to tell the person they are confronting that they are being recorded.
There is clearly a Hawthorne effect going on here.
One of the things the study's authors want to know, but there is no data, is whether the kinds of interactions change. That is, are the police doing fewer stop-n-frisk type interactions, that is, are they avoiding interactions where there is a greater likelihood of civilian resistance?
This is a study that is well worth reading.
http://cjb.sagepub.com/content...

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[torkus]

Red-light cameras are a tool for revenue generation

Irrelevant. If they fight what needs fighting — and do it cheaper than other methods — than we should be using them.

Very relevant. There IS a proven cheaper method. Longer (~+1sec) yellow lights have been demonstrated to greatly reduce red light violations (to the point where one town removed their cameras since they were costing more than they made) without the increase in rear-end collisions. Why isn't this adopted everywhere? Because revenue. Google yourself, this is readily available and has been reported in the media multiple times.

growing body of evidence of their abuse

Citation missing.

If someone makes some odd, esoteric, or strange claim, then a citation is relevant. Asking for one when there's a huge body of evidence? Lame. But sure: http://bfy.tw/81id

Police body cams however are supposed to be an impartial witness.

All cameras are impartial.

Functionally true. As a practical matter, certainly not. A camera is not omnipresent. A camera only see's what it's pointed at. You can shove someone off-camera and then turn and film them (apparently) attacking you out of the blue. While they're a HUGE benefit, camera's are not the only thing needed.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Immerman]

While it's true that yellow light times could be adjusted without cameras, doing so would be wholly counterproductive - it's long been established that shorter yellow light times lead to more accidents. The only benefit of shortening them is to increase revenue generation, which requires cheap automated monitoring of red-light violations - having an officer monitoring the intersection would almost certainly cost more than the revenue generated.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Cederic]

Shrug. Driving too close can lead to accidents when unanticipated braking occurs.

Red light cameras cause unanticipated braking. This demonstrably causes accidents. Ergo red light cameras are dangerous, irrespective of other causes or factors.

One resolution is to eliminate driving too closely to the vehicle in front. Given the impracticality of this a more pragmatic option would be to eliminate red light cameras. Same outcome.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[bjdevil66]

we the people hate them for their efficiency and wanted them removed so that we don't get caught quite so often.

Nobody wants a ticket, but this false statement fits exactly into the marketing photo radar companies love to use when selling their wares to naive city and state governments.

This makes no sense at all. Red light cameras don't fight rudeness or aggressiveness, whoever (dis)likes it. They fight illegal activity.

Illegal or not, most photo radar advocates like cameras are not concerned with curtailing "illegal activity". They are instead motivated by irrational fear ("that guy needs to slow down until I am comfortable with what they're doing,"), jealousy ("that guy needs to slow down like I do,") or their personal desire for vengeance ("I want to get even with those jerks that cut me off all the time!")

Don't think so? You need to be honest with yourself. State legislators here have been voting for photo enforcement for personal reasons since the beginning of the programs here. While I can't link to either of these resources as citations (my state's legislators debate photo radar bans on CCTV and discussing the issue via email with various legislators), they would talk about their own feelings of "being scared to drive on the freeway", needing to "enforce the laws on the books to get dangerous drivers off the road", etc. The speaker of our state house himself personally refused to allow any photo radar ban to come up for a vote because he "personally approved of the cameras" and thought "they were a good thing for the state," regardless of statistics.

Their candid, honest comments are something all photo radar advocates should be willing to admit to themselves - before they start judging anti-photo advocates. And they shouldn't be trying to automatically fine people for "sin taxes" to make their budgeting jobs (and subsequent re-election) easier.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

When your intuition is at odds with observed statistics, then either get some new statistics or improve your intuition. Don't argue with the figures you've already got.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Gavagai80]

Actually, it's "that guy needs to slow down to the point where a collision between us won't be so likely kill me." Not an irrational fear at all given the millions of people who've died in high speed crashes.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Red light cameras cause unanticipated braking.

This is stupid beyond belief.
It is inattentive drivers that do unanticipated braking.
It happens when they are surprised by the light changing - an event drivers who pay attention expect to happen..
The red light camera has no connection to your brakes. The camera cannot cause any kind of braking.

Re: Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Another option which is just as easy, is to not give out licenses to people who can't drive. If you're stopping suddenly because the light has turned/is about to turn red, its your fault for being a bad driver. If you crashed into some idiot who slammed on his brakes in front of you, it's also your fault for being a bad driver. Eliminate bad drivers from getting licenses in the first place and you can reduce accidents without letting the occasional idiot go through a red light scot-free.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Irrelevant. Rules and regulations should attempt to reduce accidents and injury, not enforce whatever we think is the "right way to drive" solely for the sake of enforcing rules. Traffic cameras at best don't help at all with accidents (and thus simply harm people by saddling them with fines) and at worst result in more accidents.

Is it safer for people to stop at red lights when they can? Yes. Is it safer for people to be more willing to push yellow lights in most situations? Surprisingly it turns out the answer is probably also yes. As such, we should be looking for a solution that encourages both behaviors, and traffic cameras aren't it.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[parkinglot777]

Shrug. Driving too close can lead to accidents when unanticipated braking occurs.

Red light cameras cause unanticipated braking. This demonstrably causes accidents. Ergo red light cameras are dangerous, irrespective of other causes or factors.

One resolution is to eliminate driving too closely to the vehicle in front. Given the impracticality of this a more pragmatic option would be to eliminate red light cameras. Same outcome.

And that is the point. If a driver isn't driving too fast in the first place, there wouldn't be "unanticipated braking" when seeing a red-light camera. Why would one brakes when seeing a camera? Well the one feels being caught from the guilt of his/her own speed. Thus, the camera should not to be blamed but the driver behavior...

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Jaime2]

There are conflicting statistics. I'm suggesting that the parent poster cherry picked a study that shows what he wanted to say, while ignoring other studies that show that red light cameras don't improve safety at all. The nonsense argument was presented as an argument that, even if the statistics were sound, perhaps it was more of a correlation than a cause-and-effect relationship.

The study cited also makes the mistake of considering the red light program as free. Taxpayers, who bear the cost in the form of tickets, would disagree that red light cameras "pay for themselves". Since a portion goes to the vendor, at best, it turns out to be a very inefficient way of paying for marginal safety. At worst, it's a cash-grab.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

You really should stop talking and start reading your own link; there you'll find more citations than you can count that thoroughly put your argument to bed without dinner.

Re:Oh, Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

They also made a different violation — failure to keep safe distance — more dangerous. But they didn't cause anybody to drive too close — I'm not sure, it is fair to blame cameras for that. People would hit the breaks (increasing the danger of being rear-ended) by seeing a live officer just as well, there is nothing camera-specific about these findings.

Well they did cause an increase in rear-end accidents so that should stand on its own. But I can tell you from observing a few cases, including a few friends of mine, that the cameras did cause people to change their driving pattern in erratic ways, to brake and slow down to a crawl approaching A GREEN LIGHT (expecting it to turn yellow any moment) as well as panic braking on YELLOW. Both of those activities are unexpected by someone behind them with full visibility of the street registering no dangers ahead.

Sys-Admins?

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems obvious, but would it work on sys-admins?
How about tech-support persons?

Re:Sys-Admins?

[dunnomattic]

Politicians.

Re:Sys-Admins?

[mythosaz]

The software is available and it does work.

In some environments, access to your servers might happen only from a jump box where everything is recorded.

This sucks when someone wants to fire you, and it's great when the people who implement it know humans make mistakes and want to be able to fix fuckups because we have visual records of changes.

Re:Sys-Admins?

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians.

Electronic records of politicians committing felonies is proven not to work.

They'd just get their ex-President husband to meet with the Attorney General who then gets the FBI to ignore all kinds of evidence.

If you didn't RTFA...

[Rogue974]

The most important thing is the end of the article.

"Specifics on how exactly this is happening are unclear. Is the officer less confrontational to begin with, avoiding escalation? Or are suspects and complainants more wary of their conduct? Is it some combination of the two, or are even more factors involved? To determine these things would be a far more complex and subtle piece of research, but the study does suggest that officer behavior is probably the most affected, and that other effects flow from that."

Someone already said it is the people acting better or making less complaints because they think they may be on camera. I am certain someone is writing, it means the police are behaving themselves.

I would guess (not scientific) that most of the drop in complaints are because people realize they might be caught on camera and acting better or not lieing to try and get a lawsuit. I am certain there are some police that are acting better as there are bad apples, but I would guess the drop is probably 10%/90% with the 90% being the people changing behavior as opposed to the police office.

Re:If you didn't RTFA...

[lorinc]

Easy to verify: give randomly fake cameras to policemen where they know it's fake but people could not see it. If you still see the drop, then it's people stopping stupid behavior, if not then it's policemen behaving better.

Re:If you didn't RTFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think that most of the people the police are confronting are probably unaware of the cameras? I've not seen these cameras but I'm going to guess they're going to be quite inconspicuous with all the other crap on a police uniform. And even if I'd read an article about the police now wearing body cameras, I'm not likely to remember it in the heat of the moment of a police encounter.

I think it's most likely going to be the police. I know when I get pulled over for a minor traffic infraction I get treated like the officer knows I raped his daughter and he just can't prove it. They yell at me, their hand is constantly on their firearm. This is all basic escalation of situations which they should be avoiding, especially for a guy that was *gasp* going 10 mph faster then the number on the sign going down a steep hill. If they know they're being recorded maybe they're more likely to use reasonable force rather then going off on a power trip. And that they'd have to explain why they walked up to the window and started yelling at me before I'd even said a word.

Re:If you didn't RTFA...

[Rogue974]

Agreed, easy to verify. Not something I can do....I assume not something you can do.

My main point was, don't assume it is the bad officers stopped being bad like a lot of people might assume these days. Article says, say drop, but don't know reason. Current political climate makes it likely a lot of people would go to the bad officers stop thing. Maybe it is, but I know quite a few police officers and so I don't tend to look at them as bad people.

I did then offer my opinion on why, but that is why I put the I would guess (not scientific).

I would also guess (again, just my opinion and a guess) that this study will probably not go any further. They realize whatever the affect is it happens so the cameras are worth it, even if just half the time wearing them, that it justifies the expense and they don't care to determine why.

Re:If you didn't RTFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except one theory is that the police *get used to good behavior*. Either through exposure to peers or themselves when they have have camera on.

Having dummy cameras doesn't change that theory. And the non-dummy cameras are already pretty subtle; are the police yelling "we are here, we are armed, and you are on camera" to bring attention to it?

The police are going to be *far* more aware of having a camera on them than the people they interact with. If the poeple they interact with are going to complain, wouldn't they be likely to start a complaint, discover if the police was wearing a camera, and halt it if it turns out there is a camera?

Or do you think the person the police is interacting with is thinking "they have a camera, so I better not sass them or resist arrest or otherwise trigger something I could complain about later"? That doesn't *seem* plausible.

Re: If you didn't RTFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

So the police officers YOU know aren't bad people, therfore, it couldn't be that the cops knew they were being recorded and started to act fucking civilized?

Remove the cameras conplaints go up, add cameras they go down. It's a win win, the police and the public act civilized.

Re: If you didn't RTFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally missing what human interaction is. It is not two separate things, it is interaction - one party being obviously nice or rule following influence the other, and back again.

Re: If you didn't RTFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

You demonstrate that quoting TFA is possible without understanding it. Well done. Now try RTFA.

Re:If you didn't RTFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better, randomly replace the fakes with real ones.

Re:If you didn't RTFA...

[Kjella]

Easy to verify: give randomly fake cameras to policemen where they know it's fake but people could not see it. If you still see the drop, then it's people stopping stupid behavior, if not then it's policemen behaving better.

Sounds great until you have a sensitive case where bystanders saw the cop had a camera but guess what, no footage. Conspiracy theorists will love that one, if you're wearing a camera it better be filming. If it's defective or off it's better that you phsyically remove it.

Re:If you didn't RTFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be great for science but pointless for society.
Police wearing body cameras appears to be a good idea regardless of why.

Re:If you didn't RTFA...

[ThomasBHardy]

I would guess (not scientific) that most of the drop in complaints are because people realize they might be caught on camera and acting better or not lieing to try and get a lawsuit. I am certain there are some police that are acting better as there are bad apples, but I would guess the drop is probably 10%/90% with the 90% being the people changing behavior as opposed to the police office.

This does not track

If there's a 50% chance that encounters had a camera present, then -at most-, the public could have seen cameras and behaved better in half of the cases. This could not cause the 93% drop.

It is far more likely that police, being the only ones who definitely knew that recordings are happening (themselves, their partner, other officers on the scene) rose to the occasion and acted in a manner that led to less escalation and antagonism.

I think your guess at the 90/10 split is actually the reverse.

Re:If you didn't RTFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Once word gets out in the neighborhood that Officer Jones is wearing a camera, behavior improves whether he's wearing it or not.

Re:If you didn't RTFA...

[Solandri]

Does this really matter? Isn't it good enough that using body cameras results in a 93% drop in complaints? The only people who care why are those sensitive about having their pre-conceived notions invalidated (that police officers are bad, or that certain citizens like to file false complaints).

Why should we conduct an experiment which risks more police abuse or false complaints resulting in possible unjust deaths or unjust suspensions, just so people with a political axe to grind can say "I told you so"?

Re:If you didn't RTFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Legally you probably wouldn't want to do that. If people come to rely on the cameras and think they are real, and they aren't the cops will have a negligence suit on them pretty quickly.

Great deterrent against

[Anonymous Coward]

- Stupid behavior by the public
- Stupid behavior by the police force
- Stupid and frivolous complaints
- Random appearances of Big Foot
- Slowing down the implementation of police state where all activity is monitored
- Non-compliance with Privacy Laws

Re:Great deterrent against

[tmh - The Mad Hacker]

- Random appearances of Big Foot

You're assuming that the video system isn't hackable. I could see having some fun... :-O

It goes both ways...

[mythosaz]

Police don't want to be filmed doing dumb shit.
Citizens stop acting like jackasses when they too are being filmed.
Situations don't escalate as frequently.

Re:It goes both ways...

[Anonymous Coward]

Citizens stop acting like jackasses when they too are being filmed.

You haven't watched the show Cops then. I've never seen a black person with their hands up.

Re:It goes both ways...

[Anonymous Coward]

Editor's bias. Filmed non-incidents are almost certainly left on the editting room floor because there's nothing compelling or interesting about the routine.

Re: It goes both ways...

[Anonymous Coward]

Never seen an intelligent person who watches cop shows and think they reflect real life.

Re:It goes both ways...

[Anonymous Coward]

In fairness, if a suspect puts their hands up and nothing exciting happens, TV isn't going to show it. They are only going to show the 'exciting' parts. Just because something isn't on TV doesn't mean it seldom happens.

Re:It goes both ways...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure behavior changed but I suspect what also changed is the perceived weight of a false/exaggerated complaint. From working in the service sector I know how idiot people can turn not getting a straw fast enough into demanding a free meal and threats of a lawsuit.

I know the same people interact with the police and would not hesitate to call and complain using a false or exaggerated narrative. If they know the officer has a camera though they may not think it is smart or worth their time to call and lie about the officer's behavior. I also know from service sector experience that these people almost always threaten to complain, as if this threat will change your response to them.All the officer has to do is say "go ahead and complain, but be aware I have a body camera and I am not going to get in trouble".

And thus BS complaints will decline.

 

Re: It goes both ways...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like these guys?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/19/hands-up-dont-shoot-did-not-happen-in-ferguson/

Re:It goes both ways...

[apoc.famine]

I wonder if this doesn't drive a secondary effect as well. It's not uncommon for a limited number of individuals to be the source of many police interactions. If a lot of those interactions are hostile, on the part of one or the other party, (or both) it creates a toxic relationship. If these interactions have a damper, such as a camera and some better behavior some percentage of the time, I wonder if that doesn't have a calming effect.
 
Whether or not it's my fault, if I'm getting harassed by the cops all the time, I'm likely going to be an asshole when I see them. But if half the time they are friendly and respectful, just doing their job, it dampens the hate. If half of the time I see that I'm on camera and I bite my tongue and say, "Yeah, sure officer. No problems here." those officers are less fired up and cautious the next time we meet. I could easily see this being a positive behavior feedback loop, where before we had a negative behavior feedback loop.

Re:It goes both ways...

[SmokeyRobot]

Citizens stop acting like jackasses when they too are being filmed. Situations don't escalate as frequently.

Clearly you are someone who has never watched "reality television."

Re:It goes both ways...

[Anonymous Coward]

Police are citizens. They are not stripped of any of the rights or responsibilities of citizenship when they are hired to work as police.

Re:It goes both ways...

[taustin]

Citizens stop acting like jackasses when they too are being filmed.

You haven't watched the show Cops then. I've never seen a black person with their hands up.

That wouldn't be very entertaining television, now would it? If they showed the routine stuff where people act like grownups, the show would have been cancelled by episode 3.

Re:It goes both ways...

[Anonymous Coward]

"And thus BS complaints will decline.'

Most cops are not that smart, cops are the ones usually overstepping their authority because they are in a position of power, aka they have the authority to apply authority to you without fear of jail. The average citizen does not, the average citizen is afraid of trumped up charges or infractions that cops can make up, cops used to do it all the time by where I live and since body cams they can't merely dig into the public and get their rocks off.

Re:It goes both ways...

[hattable]

It is a positive feedback loop that the system desperately needed.

Re:It goes both ways...

[PsychoSlashDot]

Police don't want to be filmed doing dumb shit.

Granted. That's completely sensible.

Citizens stop acting like jackasses when they too are being filmed.

That I'm not so sure about. A rational citizen isn't likely to be voluntarily getting into an altercation with police to start with. They're naturally going to be intimidated and aware that they need to be on best behaviour regardless of cameras being present, to avoid unpleasant consequences. An irrational citizen (ie. one who is drunk, high, generally belligerent, angry, having medical/mental issues, or are just generally confrontational) isn't likely to suddenly become rational just because there's a camera present. They're still high, having a PTSD flashback, or livid because they got hit in the face with a frying pan by their significant other, who is busy screaming "he hit me".

Situations don't escalate as frequently.

Yup. But I suspect the majority of the change isn't on the side of criminals and normal citizens, which are who the police interact with most often.

Re:It goes both ways...

[Jeremi]

An irrational citizen [...] isn't likely to suddenly become rational just because there's a camera present.

True, but if they are recorded on video, their misbehavior is more likely to put them in jail (or treatment) for a longer time, and thus they won't be out on the streets acting irrationally so often anymore. The end result is the same.

Re:It goes both ways...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anthropologists are very familiar with this process. The act of being observed of thinking you are observed changes behavior.

just buy fake cams

[OffTheLip]

Keep the politicians, treasurers, citizens and media happy at a fraction of the cost.

Re:just buy fake cams

[Anonymous Coward]

Police are meant to be honest law upholders, if you start kitting them out with fake kit then you break a level if trust again.

That was the goal right

[Anonymous Coward]

The goal was to be able to prove how everyone one was acting in the situation so that way when conduct was brought up in court there very hard to dispute evidence one way or another. Therefor for an intelligent individual the logical conclusion is to behave in a way that is respectable, so as to have the best outcome in a court of law.

Not just complaints

[ebonum]

Convictions and and plea deals change A LOT with body cameras. Before, you put someone in a suit and train them to say "Yes Sir/No Sir" in front of the judge. Then give the judge and everyone else the dog and pony show of how he's an A student and wants to start a business taking care of puppies. This trick doesn't work so well when there is video of a raving lunatic high on drugs taking swings at the cops.

Re:Not just complaints

[Anonymous Coward]

#puppylivesmatter

So which side was affected?

[TimothyHollins]

Like others have said, it is hard to tell if the reduction in complaints come from the police officers being on their best behavior when they wear body cameras or if it's simply harder for the complainants to fake an accusation. It's very possible that both of these are significant factors.

It seems that body cameras are a hit, though one possible snag immediately comes to mind. Cameras are replacing trust in police officers, and trust in the servants of the law is a very good thing. It correlates directly to trust in the other branches of government and a healthy democracy.

That is not to say that body cameras are bad, I think they are an absolutely positive step. Just keep in mind that building respect for the judicial institution is also a worthwhile goal.

Re:So which side was affected?

[Doke]

Unfortunately, that trust is already gone. Maybe the better behaviour induced by these cameras will help restore some of it.

Re: So which side was affected?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust is eroded already. People don't believe police are impartial and don't believe that the justice system will prosecute an officer.

"A few bad apples" is not an excuse. Let the cameras record. Impartiality is implicit. Trust isn't required when there is documented evidence.

The next two hurdles are body cams that are "accidentally" obscured or off, and when someone figures out how to have clothes covered in infra red LEDs to fuck with the cameras.

Re:So which side was affected?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust won't be restored as long as the press only shows videos of situations where the cop's behavior is in question. For every one of those videos there are thousands of cops behaving properly, but that wouldn't fit the media agenda.

Re: So which side was affected?

[Anonymous Coward]

One thousand hours of good conduct does not wipe out one moment of misconduct.

That said, I have seen no shortage of positive police coverage, they get cheered on all the time.

Re:So which side was affected?

[0111 1110]

Cameras are replacing trust in police officers, and trust in the servants of the law is a very good thing.

Are you serious? Only totally retarded cave dwellers trust the police in the US. It's almost all 'bad apples'. Servants of the law? I hope you are joking.

Stop treating this like it were binary

[grasshoppa]

Too many folks are treating this problem as though it were binary; it's all the cops fault, or it's all the suspect's faults.

The problem is more nuanced than that. In part it's an ignorant and entitled public who think they can act like little shits and endanger others because of feelings. On the other, you have officers trained in what seem to be brutal methods but are, in fact are designed to minimize harm by controlling the situation. This works out mostly in the public's favor, although they'll never realize it.

You do have a few bad eggs, as with any profession. The untrained, the illsuited or the downright malicious. However, I'd suggest that these folks account for a small percentage of officers.

If it were just the first two factors, the problem could be relatively simply solved. The problem is that politicians get involved, folks who have a vested interest in making sure that the problem never gets solved. Thus, we end up where we are.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[ausekilis]

In part it's an ignorant and entitled public who think they can act like little shits and endanger others because of feelings.

I'm not entitled... it's just that my feelings are more important than yours. ;-)

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[Bugler412]

"You do have a few bad eggs, as with any profession. The untrained, the illsuited or the downright malicious. However, I'd suggest that these folks account for a small percentage of officers." the "good" officers know who these people are, and they are made less good by allowing them to continue to operate in their midst lowering the trust level of their entire organization.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[grasshoppa]

A valid point.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[HornWumpus]

Americans lose six times as much to police theft vs. burglaries, year after year.

Until something is done about 'civil confiscation' police will be treated like the thieves they are.

I trust police about 1/6 as much as I trust professional burglars.

Weather the truly corrupt represent 50% of cops or 99% doesn't really matter when institutional corruption is SOP.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[SmokeyRobot]

These are civil servants who have the power to take a life. They must be held to a higher standard than any other group because they are unlike any other group.

This simple fact removes any nuance.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been studied and what is found is that most abuse complaints are related to a small fraction of officers[1]. Police unions are powerful, however, and they protect the bad apples. People in this country use to understand that public sector unions are a bad idea.

[1] http://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/16/business/police-dont-ask-why-are-we-getting-sued

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[Bugler412]

not to mention that what is "good" is perceived very differently within the department than it is by many outside the department.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[nedlohs]

You do have a few bad eggs, as with any profession. The untrained, the illsuited or the downright malicious. However, I'd suggest that these folks account for a small percentage of officers.

What data do you base that suggestion on?

Remembering that the very job of the police is to enforce laws and thus by definition every police officer who has turned a blind eye to another police officer breaking the law (say speeding or driving over the legal alcohol limit or using excessive force) is illsuited.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[Anonymous Coward]

"You do have a few bad eggs, as with any profession. The untrained, the illsuited or the downright malicious. However, I'd suggest that these folks account for a small percentage of officers."

the "good" officers know who these people are, and they are made less good by allowing them to continue to operate in their midst lowering the trust level of their entire organization.

Same can be said about organizations like BLM. They have some terrible people among a generally concerned group of citizens, but by allowing those ignorant trouble makers to continue their aggressive and racist behavior, it damages the entire BLM group. This can be said about any organization.

See how that works?

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[Anonymous Coward]

... a vested interest in making sure that the problem never gets solved.

You're really making 2 arguments: 1) It's not a binary problem and thus requires a complex solution; 2) 3rd parties prevent complex solutions.

You're missing the point: We want to stop the binary polarization (in police encounters) that occurs and a camera is a simple, effective solution. A camera allows one to see when it's the cop's fault or the suspect's fault. The fact it's a complex problem doesn't stop a simple solution being useful.

Maybe this time, 3rd parties have the sense to not use technology to 'cure' complex problems.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other, you have officers trained in what seem to be brutal methods but are, in fact are designed to minimize harm by controlling the situation.

You mean minimizing the danger to the officers themselves... Let's be honest, this isn't about keeping the public safe, it's about keeping the officers safe.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[Khashishi]

It's not that most officers are bad people. It's that authority corrupts people. When you put people in authoritarian positions, they become transformed into assholes.

Re: Stop treating this like it were binary

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this. The only difference between cops and criminals is whether or not I can defend myself when they attack me. Criminal attacks me, or tries to steal my property, I can defend myself. In some situations, even with lethal force. If a cop attacks me, or tries to steal my stuff, if I defend myself, they'll kill me and never even get a slap on the wrist. How is this "to protect and serve" again?

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[grasshoppa]

Cameras, while effective, are a bandaid solution. The tensions are still there, only now we have a measure to prevent abuse.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be used, mind you. Absolutely should cameras and other recording devices be used. I'm even an advocate of private citizens having the right to film any officer while they're on duty.

However, a longer term fix is for cops and their detractors to come together and determine how best to handle the threats their communities face. Start with the goals, then move on towards addressing those goals. All parties must be willing to participate in the process, but with egos being fueled by the politicians, no one wants to budge.

That's the real problem.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[grasshoppa]

A valid point, absolutely. Power does corrupt, and any reaching for it should be met with the utmost suspicion ( trump, hillary...but that's another discussion entirely ). Cameras go a long way in addressing that, and I don't wish to be perceived as discouraging their use. I'm a huge advocate for 24/7 recording of any on duty public official, cops especially.

Likewise, I'm a fan of citizen education. I want citizens put through the same threat neutralizing course that officers are. I want them to understand the tactics of a situation, of how fast unstable can become violent. Have them go through file footage of past encounters in their community for reference.

Then, those very same citizens can sit down with officers and they all can decide on dept policy.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[Razed By TV]

I'm no cop apologist, (often quite the opposite), but I wonder -
On one hand, you have bad cops - and "good" cops who don't turn the bad cops, and are corrupted by that and are therefore "good" instead of good.

On the other hand, you have any other job, where there is a balancing act of "getting the job done" and weeding out bad behavior. You have to get the job done, and you can only police your coworkers to a certain extent. You can report bad behavior, but it erodes your environment. Without higher level support, you are open to retaliation from coworkers (or even from higher ups). If you do not report the behavior, you are, in a way, complicit in it. But if you do report it, it may be near impossible to have an effective working arrangement to get the job done at all.

Not saying that makes it okay. But with body cams, it helps take the onus off the "good" cops to turn in their coworkers.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[0111 1110]

However, I'd suggest that these folks account for a small percentage of officers.

Any particular reason why you'd suggest this? Would you say the same about a street gang? Because that is exactly what the police are essentially. I think it is more complicated sociologically than you imagine.

It has a lot more to do with the sorts of people who are attracted to law enforcement professions in the US. It attracts bullies and thugs with something to prove and who glorify and worship violence. It doesn't seem to be like that in most of Europe or Asia or even Latin America where law enforcement jobs mostly attract normal people.

Body cameras are great for making those crazy sociopaths in blue have to work harder to get away with all the illegal and unethical and downright cruel stuff they do on a daily basis, but bad/evil people will remain bad/evil. They will just turn off or break their cameras before beating/murdering/framing people.

Still, these are not very bright people we are talking about here. Not only are they the most violent cowards in American society, but they are also some of the least intelligent. Violence and low intelligence are often linked. So the cams will probably discourage and limit a lot of bad behavior.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[0111 1110]

However, a longer term fix is for cops and their detractors to come together and determine how best to handle the threats their communities face.

Like wolves and sheep deciding on a menu? Cops themselves are mostly incredibly stupid and dishonest. They won't really add much to your brainstorming session. In addition to body cameras the US needs to stop accepting violent, amoral sociopaths onto the force and treating them as if they are normal human beings when they clearly are not. There are psych tests that can help determine if someone is a sociopath.

A zero tolerance policy for violent and sociopathic tendencies could go a long way to cleaning up the force. Another interesting tactic might be to introduce quotas for female police officers. It would be nice if at least 50% of police were female. Even if they are also sociopaths (the job really does attract them) at least they will usually be much less violent. The idealization/admiration of violence is more of a male thing I think. Most of the female cops I've met seem much better than any of the male ones. Some even seemed to have at least some degree of empathy for suspects in their custody.

Another idea would be to automatically disqualify anyone with a past history of bullying or violence. Even as children. Actually investigating these people for evidence of such behavior would probably do wonders. It would not surprise me if 9 out of 10 would be identified as bullies by former schoolmates. Just go interview people from their high school and middle school classes. People who knew them but weren't friends. The bullies who become cops tend to be much worse than the ones who don't. So I think you'd find a lot of stories about cruel and violent acts. Torturing animals. Beating up smaller students. All of that. People like that don't (usually) just transform into monsters overnight. They will often have a history. In fact why not make the person making hiring decisions liable for their actions if/when someone they hire murders someone? After getting rid of the amoral sociopaths in American police the next step would be to weed out the District Attorneys and prosecutors in general with sociopathic and amoral tendencies.

Essentially we really have to fire 90% of the people currently working as police and hire new candidates who demonstrate that they have actual feelings and care about not hurting people and would actually feel guilty if they did. And surely law enforcers should have a sense of right and wrong. Like in the movies. In real life there is a distinct lack of this sense among police in the US. A police force full of females and sensitive, ethical males? Damned right! That is what we need.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[0111 1110]

It's not that most officers are bad people. It's that authority corrupts people.

Actually it's both. The job simply attracts the wrong sort of people in the US and the police force does nothing to actively prevent people with a history of violence and bullying from joining. Yes those experiments you are probably thinking of do show that seemingly normal human beings can turn into monsters when given authority, but I think most of the police in the US were already that way. Otherwise how would you explain the relative lack of violent police in most other countries?

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[Locke2005]

More like officers, like every else, make mistakes, especially in high-stress situations. When the mistake you make is in threat assessment, and your go-to reaction to any threat is to shoot to kill, then bad things happen... does that make you a bad person, or just a person that screwed up? Of course, making the mistake in the first place should disqualify you from continuing to work in law enforcement.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[fgouget]

You do have a few bad eggs, as with any profession.

It's not just a few bad eggs. It's all the other eggs that support the bad eggs, cover up their lies, refuse to hold the bad eggs accountable for their actions. So many of the eggs are rotten in this way, often without even realizing it, that any egg that does try to speak up will get broken and thrown out in no time.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[dywolf]

I submit that is the in the enablers who are the worst part of the situation.

there are always bad apples, yes.
but what allows the bad apples to taint the barrel of apples is the enablers who say nothing or who pressure each other when someone does dare too have some integrity and say something. that's what enables the toxic culture to set in, what allows a whole department to go bad and lose the trust of the public.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[dywolf]

we have a large combat veteran force leaving the military right now.
a common place of employment following their service is the police.
unfortunately some of these individuals forget to leave that warrior mindset behind.

and that's how we get police officers who describe themselves as warriors, or complain about being expected to be guardians and not warriors.
not making that up, I've heard that from actual vets turned police.

ultimately I see this as another consequence of not teaching basic civics anymore.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[baristabrian]

One of the most insightful and intelligent (and accurate) commentaries on this general topic that I've ever had the privilege of reading. Thanks.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[q4Fry]

I am a little sceptical that this is the problem you think it is. Veterans actually complain about police behavior, pointing out that those in military service in populated areas are expected to de-escalate situations if possible. They are also specifically prohibited from pointing their weapons at anyone they are not imminently expecting to shoot. This is in fierce contrast with police reaction to the Ferguson riots. Whatever you may think of the riots themselves, images of police with assault rifles aimed at protesters is a marked difference from military SOP.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single one of the other officers on the force with those "bad apples" are bad apples who turn their heads when they see felony crimes committed; because they work with the perp, and don't want to arrest them because they know and like them. If some percent of "bad apples" were arrested by the cops, I'd buy it. But they never are. If enough evidence is collected, a prosecutor might eventually bring charges. But the cops who witness the abuses do not make arrests, ever. That leaves the whole force direct accomplices, in addition to perpetrators of official misconduct.

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a fucking statist douche bag, stfu!

Re:Stop treating this like it were binary

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not that these cops are just going power mad. it's that they are being compromised by the laws they are told to enforce. the voters allow the scum legislatures to pass unconstitutional laws that the cops are supposed to enforce. once you get them enforcing laws that are anti-freedom under the guise of public safety and all this other socialist control horseshit then you've compromised the integrity of the individual cop. then you can just keep creating shittier laws proportional to the laziness and ignorance of the populace until you have a nazi police state.

More Data Needed

[Anonymous Coward]

I think just having 2 data points (last year vs this year) is insufficient to imply causation. Especially given the drastic results and how it was uncorrelated with police actually having them on. I suspect the police department changed accounting policies (what classifies as a "complaint") or otherwise changed something that is unrelated to the body cameras. I didn't read the article though~

The police know they're wearing cameras

[grimJester]

..but would 90+% of the population realize this before filing a complaint?

Re:The police know they're wearing cameras

[Chris Mattern]

The cameras aren't exactly hidden. They're generally right there in plain sight on the front of the uniform shirt, and fairly large.

But soon the cameras will be useless

[plopez]

see http://www.wral.com/new-nc-bod...

Re:But soon the cameras will be useless

[Anonymous Coward]

How is providing for the 'structured release of a video' making it 'useless'? Now don't get me wrong, I don't think there is any 'reasonable' constitutional or other argument regarding 'law enforcement privacy' that should be used to withhold video (as suggested in the article), after all they work for the people and as the employer we have a right to know how our employees are behaving. On the other hand, there may be all kinds of things in a video that would overstep other individuals privacy rights or considerations (if you don't consider 'privacy' a right) that would impact whether any given video should be released. At a minimum people depicted in the video or their representative should be allowed access to the video upon request without a court order, e.g. if I or someone who I may be legal guardian or representative of is in a video I should be allowed to see it, doesn't mean the public should have access.

This whole 'you have to release it to the public' idea is crap. The 'public' as a whole has no legitimate interest in a video unless they are actually IN the video & then they should have a right to see it, and be given access in a way that ensures the privacy rights of all private individuals depicted in the video are protected.

Funny thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

liberals can't just make shit up about cops now and it bugs them to no end. I love how they keep getting caught out in their lies and general bullshit.

Re:Funny thing is

[Kaenneth]

Wanna blow a conservative's mind?

Most Police are Union members.

Re:Funny thing is

[Bugler412]

unlike the police who keep getting caught in lies about what actually happened by bystander cameras?

Re:Funny thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

Most? Who isn't?

Re:Funny thing is

[_Sharp'r_]

Want to blow a SJW's mind?

All the police departments with the BLM-related accusations and riots are run by Democrats, who also run the mayor's office, etc.. Most are also heavily black police forces, which is why it keeps being black cops being accused of racist behavior in some of these BLM "incidents".

The reason most police are union members is also related... their bosses love their union political contributors/supporters and the police are required to join in order to work in left-wing run cities.

Re:Funny thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought police unions *WERE* the biggest argument the right has against unions?

Because making sure those nurses aren't understaffed and working 60 hour weeks lets them get their kids into college, and keeps patients from dying to grave errors.

Re:Funny thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Police and Firefighter both use unions because they know they work. Who do you think provides legal support to officers when they get in trouble? The unions do. Who negotiates and threatens when a officer's job is on the line? The union.

But since they are authoritarians, they will vote conservative.

Re:Funny thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that blacks cannot, as a rule, be racist against blacks?

Re:Funny thing is

[31415926535897]

I bet this is where the "hate the sin, not the sinner" cliche comes from. :-)

Re:Funny thing is

[Locke2005]

Evidence suggests that even black cops are prone to assuming black men are more dangerous than whites. Is that racism, inaccurate threat assessment, or accurate threat assessment?

Re:Funny thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the "unarmed civilian shot by cop" videos I see have the unarmed civilian being a black man and the cop being white.

Still, I think that even when a black cop shoots a black person, most people would call it racism -- even though SJWs have redefined the word "racism" to not apply to black people. I guess in that case they would say it's the "system" that's racist rather than the shooter?

dom

Re:Funny thing is

[_Sharp'r_]

So why, when membership becomes no longer legally mandated by the government, public service union members stop paying dues and quit, resulting in dramatically lower membership?

Is that also because they find their union so useful to them?

Re:Funny thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. Cops tend to be authoritarian conservatives. D or R doesn't really matter. Conservatives are cheap asses. They will be the first to bitch about someone else getting something for free, but when it's their pocket book on the line, why buy the milk when they can get the cow for free? They're hypocrites which is also what you're trying to imply (but for different reasons). Your veracity in arguing against a pro-union AC and your leading line of questioning also makes it pretty obvious to me that my analysis applies to you as well. You believe your way is the right way to do something and the way you got (for instance) your promotion was through a fuck ton of late nights off the clock working while your kids got old without you, your "reputation", the amount of your personal sacrifice, the amount of ass you kissed, and you may have actually had to suck a real dick. You see the union members get their raises, promotions, and other benefits yearly on an automatic progression path without regard to how much ass they kissed or how many cocks they sucked. They get to go to little Cindy's recital and they can actually afford to take vacation. What a sane person would do is see that awesome job package the union people have and demand the same but authoritarians always want to take stuff away. If they can't have the toy, no one will. But what usually happens is they take said toy away, keep it, make sure no one else can have one and then wave it around to all the other kids so they can be "worshipped" for that cool toy they "worked" so hard to get.

Re:Funny thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanna blow a liberal's mind? Use facts. You virtually have to belong to the union.

Re:Funny thing is

[baristabrian]

Wanna blow a conservative's mind?

Most Police are Union members.

Doesn't blow *my* conservative mind; I was in AFL-CIO (AFSCME), Teamsters and an independent group for twenty years as a correctional officer. But, of course, I'm only *one* anecdote. YMMV.

Treating the symptom

[jenningsthecat]

While we're basking in the glow of the decrease in complaints against police, let's not lose sight of the fact that the paternalistic hand of body-cam surveillance is simply treating a symptom, not the disease that causes it. If our society's overall psychological health were such that citizens weren't routinely afraid of and/or abusive of police, and police didn't routinely brutalize minor criminals and even innocent citizens, then body cameras wouldn't be necessary. When good behaviour, respect, and mutual tolerance can only be guaranteed when "someone's watching", then we live in an immature and ailing culture. We need to address that problem; police body cameras are a dirty band-aid on a wound that ultimately requires disinfectant, stitches, antibiotics, and time to heal.

Re:Treating the symptom

[Lendrick]

You're not wrong, but sometimes in the short term you have to treat the symptom.

Re:Treating the symptom

[g01d4]

Treating the symptoms often enable a cold to end sooner by giving the body more strength to fight the virus. In this instance the 'virus' will be defeated sooner as it's realized proper behavior/training makes law enforcement performance and morale healthier as well.

Re:Treating the symptom

[Anonymous Coward]

Actions can't change culture, only influence behaviour.

If people are more polite for a few decades, then the culture will drift in a direction we like.

Re:Treating the symptom

[david_thornley]

This isn't analogous to physical injury, it's a matter of behavior. If the cameras get the police to act more responsibly in public, and the public gets used to greater police responsibility, or at worst provide evidence against murder by cop that leads to prosecution, tensions will be down on both sides.

Sometimes the way to attack a behavioral problem is to fake it until you make it.

Re:Treating the symptom

[jenningsthecat]

This isn't analogous to physical injury, it's a matter of behavior. If the cameras get the police to act more responsibly in public, and the public gets used to greater police responsibility, or at worst provide evidence against murder by cop that leads to prosecution, tensions will be down on both sides.

Sometimes the way to attack a behavioral problem is to fake it until you make it.

Good point. I'd mod you up as Insightful if I could...

Re:Treating the symptom

[0111 1110]

Treating the symptoms often enable a cold to end sooner by giving the body more strength to fight the virus

Citation needed. The body's reaction to a cold virus such as a runny nose is a defense mechanism. When you disable it you are reducing the body's ability to fight the virus. Yes you are made more comfortable but so is the virus.

Re:Treating the symptom

[Locke2005]

Cameras don't just make police act like someone's watching. They also make suspects act like someone's watching, because they are actively collecting evidence.

Re:Treating the symptom

[0111 1110]

They also make suspects act like someone's watching

Right. Because an actual police officer standing right there in front of you doesn't make you feel like you are being watched. Because the suspect knows a jury will believe him rather than the police officer. Yep. Makes sense. Police testimony is routinely thrown out of court because everyone knows they routinely lie on the stand. Oh wait...

Re:Treating the symptom

[Anonymous Coward]

We have the most uneducated becoming police. In our economy, we could correct that by not demanding that police be under a certain education attainment, and then turning that around and demanding higher education standards from the police force.

Police behave better when being watched

[sjbe]

Pretty much what I was thinking. Fewer complaints because they know they would be in the wrong....

Or MUCH more likely, the police behaved themselves better because they were being watched. The police know they have cameras. It's unlikely most people interacting with police were aware of the cameras. Most logical conclusion is that the police started minding their manners when on camera. Better behaved police = fewer complaints.

Re:Police behave better when being watched

[CaptnCrud]

Uh...I find that difficult to believe....considering it looks like a giant armored webcam with a microphone. Its normally sitting right on their chest so it's kinda hard to miss...

Anyway it doesn't matter, if it's helping out then I say right on.

Re:Police behave better when being watched

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh...I find that difficult to believe....considering it looks like a giant armored webcam with a microphone. Its normally sitting right on their chest so it's kinda hard to miss...

Anyway it doesn't matter, if it's helping out then I say right on.

The probability of having any interaction with police is inversely proportional to intelligence....

Re:Police behave better when being watched

[Hognoxious]

Uh...I find that difficult to believe....considering it looks like a giant armored webcam with a microphone.

I'm wondering if a double-blind test with dummy cameras would answer any questions.

Re:Police behave better when being watched

[tlambert]

Or MUCH more likely, the police behaved themselves better because they were being watched.

MUCH more likely that false complaints wouldn't go anywhere, because if the interaction was recorded, it's harder to jam up a cop that pisses you off by complaining they did something they didn't do.

Cops pretty much know that they are being filmed most of the time, since even 8 year olds who can't legally enter into service contracts with cell companies are carrying around cell phones capable of recording video. In any urban area, if there are people around and a police interaction going on: it's filmed.

Re:Police behave better when being watched

[Sowelu]

Maybe if the cops knew whether they were recording but the civilians did not. Otherwise, the variable under analysis couldn't impact the results.

Of course, if you really wanted to rigorously test the hypothesis, you wouldn't only measure civilian reports. You would record police behavior as well. Which means you actually would be recording, and the experiment would be in TELLING half of the police that they weren't recording when they actually were.

It won't help...

[Anonymous Coward]

The MSM will just edit out the parts that don't follow the narrative like they did in Charlotte NC recently and in August in Milwaukee MN. Gotta make sure the police saying "Drop the gun!!!" 12 times in 38 seconds doesn't get in the way of mob hysteria, right? And "burn down the suburbs instead!" just doesn't go along with the "peace in the city" in a grieving sister's message.

I mean, who are you going to believe? The media or your lying eyes and ears?

ANY mix is good.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

[maybe it's] Fewer [bogus] complaints because they know they would be [detected to be] in the wrong....

Or MUCH more likely, the police behaved themselves better because they were being watched [and knew the cameras were there even if the people they interacted with did not].

I don't really care how much of it is formerly bad-behaving policemen avoiding the harassment of civilians and how much is bad-behaving civilians avoiding the filing fake harassment reports to inconvenience and deflect the attention of properly-behaving officers. BOTH are improvements.

And a 93% improvement of the aggregate is FANTASTIC!

Re:ANY mix is good.

[0111 1110]

Just keep in mind that those cops who routinely beat and murder people are still out there and they aren't quitting their jobs anytime soon. They are very dumb but if this policy is implemented nationally they, as a group, will figure out away around it. Just give them time. Maybe they will ask their smarter friends who make a living doing something other than beating and murdering innocent people and their pets..

But yes it is a huge step forward and all police should be required to wear them and turning off or smashing or otherwise intentionally disabling the cam before beating or murdering a suspect should be severely penalized. I'd suggest summary execution.

Bottom Line

[Anonymous Coward]

It is in everyone's best interest for law enforcement officers to wear body cams. It's a win/win. They should be mandatory for any officer that engages with any citizen, in any situation, in my opinion. After watching countless marathons of cop videos on youtube I feel bad for the ludicrous chaos that cops have to put up with. The majority of the time; a body cam saves the cop from a lying accusation.

If I were a cop I would want one just to cover my own ass. Hell I would youtube every recording if I was allowed. Actually there are cops on youtube that have quite a following...especially the pretty female officers. They have their own cop youtube community. I'm all for it, we need to support cops not demonize them.

In other news- 911 calls down too

[ripvlan]

I just read that due to fear of the police, and a belief they won't help you anyhow --- calls to 911 are down drastically too.

Apparently being nice is good for business. Or being really brutal.

http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

Re:In other news- 911 calls down too

[Anonymous Coward]

A no-use number with no-use people
If your life is on the line then you're dead today
Latecomers with the late coming stretcher
That's a body bag in disguise y'all, I'll betcha
I call 'em body snatchers cause they come to fetch ya
With an autopsy ambulance just to dissect ya

-- Public Enemy 1990 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_Is_a_Joke

Keep your distance

[DrYak]

The increase in accidents is less dangerous relatively slow speed rear end collisions, while
side on higher speed, and so more deadly, rates go down.

While can't you people on your side of the pond keep your distance with the person in front of you ?
Most driving code/law require the driver to keep enough braking distance in front.
(If you can't stop suddenly, then it's your fault than you didn't leave enough distance to be able to / weren't attentive enough).

---

Said as someone who drives mostly in northern Europe

---

Yes, I know, the situation is quite different in southern France or Italy.

---

And anyway the whole point is quickly becoming moot as most European car constructors are not only providing anti-collision assisting technology, but even putting them in standard configuration (the *whole* VW fleets is equipped with there beast. Even the punny little "Up!" has a LIDAR).

Re:Keep your distance

[Anonymous Coward]

If you leave more than a car length, then someone else will just cut into that spot you've nicely left open just for them. The police here don't give tickets for tailgating unless they're already looking for an excuse to hassle you.

Re:Keep your distance

[Anonymous Coward]

My experience in Europe is that people crash more often, but the cars are already so bashed up that the drivers just yell at each other for a while then drive away without reporting it.

Correlation does not equal causation.

[SeaFox]

But even more surprising is that the data suggests everyone is on their best behavior whether the cameras are present or not.

Sounds like this is less about the cameras reducing shenanigans and more about the two parties not wanting to become the next "officer shot an unarmed suspect" news story. So it's more a change in behavior due to current political climate.

Re:Correlation does not equal causation.

[0111 1110]

and more about the two parties not wanting to become the next "officer shot an unarmed suspect" news story.

Yes because getting shot isn't enough of a deterrent. Getting shot and getting a video of it put on youtube is just so much worse that it deters people from attacking those poor helpless police officers.

Flawed Assumption

[The Last Gunslinger]

Your implied assertion ("A") that it's a small group of inherently bad cops is both flawed and wholly unsubstantiated.

The fact that there are *daily* reports from all over the country of cops abusing their authority in various ways and being caught engaging in criminal acts themselves debunks your assumption.

Policing problems in the USA are institutional. The personnel issues are symptoms of the larger sickness. Body camera deployments here bear out my contention: how many incidents of violent police behaviors have we seen recently where the cop "forgot" to turn on his recorder? How many incidents where recordings were captured, but the police refuse to release the raw footage to the public?

Anyone actually interested in providing police accountability through these would have mandated that individual officers have no control over the recorder's operation, and stipulated that failure to wear the device properly would have resulted in suspension or termination depending on what was "missed." They also would have demanded that raw footage be held securely in escrow by a non-LE third-party. That neither of these very basic parameters were even discussed, much less required, should tell you all you need to know about what a charade this truly is.

Re:Flawed Assumption

[Copid]

I think it's a reasonable guess that the majority of serious abuse is a small number of repeat offenders simply because that's how it is everywhere else. Most criminal activity is the same way. It's not like every person steals one car or commits a burglary in his lifetime. It's a small percentage of people who do it over and over again who run up the stats.

The problem that seems to be more universal is the willingness of all of the other police to cover for the worst offenders. A cop who probably wouldn't unnecessarily beat a suspect still seems very likely to lie to protect a fellow officer who would. Weirdly, police spokesmen like to use the phrase, "A few bad apples..." to describe the problem. They don't seem to know what the rest of that saying is or how well it applies to them.

Re:Flawed Assumption

[The Last Gunslinger]

I think it's a reasonable guess that the majority of serious abuse is a small number of repeat offenders simply because that's how it is everywhere else. Most criminal activity is the same way. It's not like every person steals one car or commits a burglary in his lifetime. It's a small percentage of people who do it over and over again who run up the stats.

Yes and no. Yes, it's likely a minority of the population who account for a large percentage of "actual crime," and I quote that to discount the nonsensical crimes of possession upon which our political heroes have spent decades wasting incalculable resources. No, in that the inferred parallel of cops to the general population isn't a valid one. A much more apt comparison would be to liken police to an organized crime outfit or terrorist operation, as the very institutions themselves are engaged in criminal pursuits of varying degrees of severity. Within that paradigm, most or all of the involved individuals are guilty of crimes, unlike within the general citizenry.

The problem that seems to be more universal is the willingness of all of the other police to cover for the worst offenders. A cop who probably wouldn't unnecessarily beat a suspect still seems very likely to lie to protect a fellow officer who would.

The Mafia use the term omerta within their ranks to describe this code of silence, reinforcing again the parallel between police and organized crime syndicates.

Weirdly, police spokesmen like to use the phrase, "A few bad apples..." to describe the problem. They don't seem to know what the rest of that saying is or how well it applies to them.

Largely because the audience to whom they're speaking are either ignorant or uncaring of the rest of the axiom. Believe you me, the bunch has been spoiled for a very long time.

Was electing Hillary really worth this?

[HBI]

The whole thing is a ginned up controversy created to get black people to go out and vote in the same numbers they did for Obama. The side effects are a significantly increased murder rate and rates of violent crime in urban areas...and the reduction in 911 calls that you point out.

The interesting part is that I am not sure that it is going to accomplish its intended goal. But we'll have the blowback for years to come.

Re:Was electing Hillary really worth this?

[Cro Magnon]

Well, if more black people are getting killed, that means fewer voters. If the idea is to gin up more votes for Hilary, I can see this backfiring.

Goes both ways

[spineboy]

I'm sure there's a fair amount of people out there who also made spurious complaints against the police, and if recorded wouldn't make that complaint as well.

I don't think the bad behaviour leading to complaints is entirely on one side - I'm fairly certain that the cameras cut down on naughty police behaviour and also on false claims by the non-police.

To be honest - there are some pretty strong arguments to wear the camera by "good" cops, in that it serves to protect them from bad people.

Re: Goes both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Ars Technica had an article on the results of cams. There were a lot of disproven complaints mixed with the evidence of police wrongdoing.

Missing Info in the Article

[Anonymous Coward]

The article states that there was about a 50% chance of an officer wearing a camera, but no mention if officers were paired up. In that case it could be that one officer had a camera and the other didn't, both officers were on their best behavior because at least one of them was recording at all times.

Then there are also times when officers run into each other on the beat or multiple officers report out when an incident is called in, which means that again at least one officer has a recording of the incident.

So unless the coverage is below a certain ratio the officers were conditioned to expect they would be caught on camera if they acted out. Of course this also goes for the students as well.

Math makes things better

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the summary and my first thought was how they weren't really taking into account the cameras effect properly.

If I am a cop, I have a 50% chance of getting a camera.
My partner also has 50% chance of getting a camera.

So there is a 75% chance we won't be able get away with anything while we are together.

Plus cops don't hate all blacks (sorry BLM), they just hate the ones who piss them off/run away/are in big crowds/etc. A lot of these scenarios are the same ones that they call for backup on, so now in the cases where a cop is most likely to want to kick a little extra ass, they have a car coming with another 75% chance of getting them on video...so they have to wait and see who is in the other car and if they have cameras.

You now have 4 cops and the chance that none of them have a camera is 6.25% (or a 93.75% chance they will have at least one camera)

Re:Math makes things better

[Locke2005]

It not that cops hate blacks. It's that, all other things being equal, people with dark faces are considered more threatening than people with light faces. There is another problem with all white cops working all ethnic neighborhoods; after a while an "us versus them" mentality evolves where everybody they see on the street is assumed to be a perp, but that's not just a white/black phenomenom. If all the people you saw committing crimes were black, and all the people busting them for committing crimes were white, what assumptions would you tend to make after observing this behavior for years?

Many cops themselves seem to want the cameras

[Locke2005]

Apparently recording the encounter encourage BOTH sides to be on their best behavior. Would having everybody wear google glasses make everybody in a society more polite?

something I was told

[0111 1110]

I was told by a defense attorney that my state or maybe the city I was in used to have cruiser dashcams (which would have helped greatly in my case), but they were removed because statistically in court it tended to hurt the prosecution more than it did the defense. I guess someone did an analysis. Police routinely lie on the stand and any audio or video footage makes that much harder to do.

To anyone living in the real world this shouldn't be very surprising of course, but most people probably have had too little contact with real police officers to know this. There is a strong tendency for people to believe in the police image as portrayed in TV and film. But those people are actors who themselves don't really know what it is like to actually be a cop.

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Earlier this year, facebook decided that I was interested in violent cop videos and started spamming my feed with them.

I say spam because basically all of them was clearly jerks that was planning a setups to provoke cops so they could get some idiot video for the social favorite feed.

It went as far as me starting to mark these as spam and reported them. Facebooks investigation team however told me that I was wrong and kept sending that crap to my feed for a long time.

It clearly showed that the majority of complaints against cops are staged by idiots that think they are cool if they do their best to piss off the cops

Ocean's Eleven

[NewYork]

UK installed 1 million CCTVs for 62 million citizens

Usually doesn't work that way.

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens is that someone will say that the cop may have had justification for screaming abuse and using a knife to cut away the screen he broke on the car door by something BEFORE the recording.

What COULD have justified his insane rage is never considered, but asserted as there nonetheless.