Slashdot Mirror
Body Camera Study Shows No Effect On Police Use of Force Or Citizen Complaints (npr.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: Having police officers wear little cameras seems to have no discernible impact on citizen complaints or officers' use of force, at least in the nation's capital. That's the conclusion of a study performed as Washington, D.C., rolled out its huge camera program. The city has one of the largest forces in the country, with some 2,600 officers now wearing cameras on their collars or shirts. In the wake of high-profile shootings, many police departments have been rapidly adopting body-worn cameras, despite a dearth of solid research on how the technology can change policing. "We need science, rather than our speculations about it, to try to answer and understand what impacts the cameras are having," says David Yokum, director of the Lab @ DC. His group worked with local police officials to make sure that cameras were handed out in a way that let the researchers carefully compare officers who were randomly assigned to get cameras with those who were not. The study ran from June 2015 to last December. It's to be expected that these cameras might have little impact on the behavior of police officers in Washington, D.C., he says, because this particular force went through about a decade of federal oversight to help improve the department.
are very good and cool
It's to be expected that these cameras might have little impact on the behavior of police officers in Washington, D.C., he says, because this particular force went through about a decade of federal oversight to help improve the department.
I don't think this is the real cause. What happens is that people get used to cameras, just like celebrities or people on reality TV shows forget to keep a poker face after a while because the cameras are always there.
lucm, indeed.
Because most district attorneys are too chickenshit to bring charges against a cop. If a DA does bring charges all the cops turn into instant crybabies and threaten to stop doing their jobs. Also notice how the charges are rarely direct, mostly its a grand jury who decides and the DA can influence how its run. Then you have the police unions.
Ever read about how Jeffrey Dahmer was almost caught? A naked and intoxicated 14 year old boy ran out of Dahmer's apartment and the police were called. All the black neighbors said the boy was underage and didn't belong there. The cops didn't listen and gave the boy back to Dahmer to be murdered. Google his name John Balcerzak.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
...a great way to discourage their use...
In other news water is wet and Trump supporters are fucking idiots.
Because police officers will happily turn off the cameras whenever they know they'll get in situations where they'll look bad. And given that there are no consequences for doing so, this will continue to be the status quo.
The whole idea of government police is the problem. Private security actually cares about serving customers because they are responsive to the profit motive. A private security company that beat up and shot customers all the time would go bankrupt in short order. Government police can get away with doing whatever they want because they have a legal monopoly on police work, and we are all forced to pay them with taxes whether we want to or not.
What other industry besides government gets to do this? Can Costco or Apple or Whole Foods come at you with guns, make you buy their products, and then jail or shoot you if you refuse compliance? How is government distinguishable from a mafia protection racket?
Privatize all police, and watch security go through the roof and abuse plummet.
Crime Privacy Police Complaints Drop 93 Percent After Deploying Body Cameras https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
Well there's your problem: huge cameras!
Didn't see any mention of the various caught on body cam planting evidence, do doubt because that wasn't in D.C. Subject is oddly general for a report from 1 city.
The point, as I understood it, is that we have footage that shows what really happened, as opposed to when cops lie about the mortal danger of a black person running away from them,
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
"We're hoping to run another study, this time with the cameras turned on."
Could be both are right, thanks to this gem from the article you just posted:
"Against all expectations, there was no significant difference in complaints between officers wearing cameras that week and those going without."
Yep, that quote came straight out of the article (and, in fact, the summary) that claimed the 93 percent drop.
The difference in claims is subtle, yet significant. The 93 percent drop is a before and after comparison. The "no difference" is a with and without comparison. Put simply, once the cameras were rolled out, ALL officers started behaving better, whether they were wearing cameras or not. So there was a huge drop from before, but no difference between officers during.
The more recent publication does not make it clear whether they are comparing before-and-after or with-and-without. Though the wording definitely suggests they may just be comparing with-and-without.
Furthermore, there is this statement "because this particular force went through about a decade of federal oversight to help improve the department." So the officers were already in the spotlight before the cameras were rolled out, receiving oversight that would, presumably, be keeping them on their best behavior. If that oversight was effective, we would expect a drop in complaints when that oversight began, and no drop in complaints when the cameras were rolled out (since everyone just stayed on their best behavior).
The researchers could not detect any change in police behavior with or without body cameras.
So the explanation is "Those police officers were straightened out by the Feds earlier...."
Then why the hell did you study that department?
Caution: Contents under pressure
To be useful, they need to do a study where police misconduct is rampant.
Like St. Louis, or Baltimore.
At least the mayor of Cleveland had the guts to fire the cop caught on video.
If you don't know how much use of force was before there were body cameras, how do you conclude there was not reduction? You cannot control what cannot be measured is a basic science given.
with the police?
NPR's studied a topic which needs some study - "What are the affects of body cameras?" Then it presumes the correct question is, "Does this affect police behavior?" Of course, that question in the end does not matter. What matters is whether citizens unjustly treated by police offered a better final outcome for police brutality cases and whether police officers unjustly accused by citizens with whom they interacted also provided a better final outcome in their cases. It's a shame NPR didn't seem to ask THAT question. (Or the person posting here didn't suppressed this portion of the question...)
{^_^}
To be useful, they need to do a study where police misconduct is rampant.
No, they just need a study where they can prove that all footage was recorded and processed. Can they turn off cameras?
What was the percentage of damaged recording (audio or video)?
Chicago Police Hid Mics, Destroyed Dashcams To Block Audio, Records Show
That is SO true!
Of course the altered footage never shows a beating. You can count on those being valid.
With current tech, the camera could be a button, or a shoulder pip, the cop might not know.
You can assume that NPR won't ask any question whose answer would conflict with its political agenda. It's pretty obvious that the evidence on the cameras, assume it isn't "accidentally" deleted, would resolve most cases of police brutality almost instantly.
Put simply, once the cameras were rolled out, ALL officers started behaving better, whether they were wearing cameras or not. So there was a huge drop from before, but no difference between officers during.
Frankly, I'd expect the officers not wearing a camera to behave better: they aren't in control of switching a camera off. Only a patrol where no officer wears a camera and everybody knows it is unimpacted.
I have to wonder about anything from a government agency looking after another government agency. I do believe that we need government agencies keeping an eye on other government agencies, but I won't place too much trust in such reports without something backing it up. What we have is an agency created by the mayor to do what they claim to be independent and scientific observations on other city agencies. Just how much corruption, abuse, fraud, and so forth is such an agency willing to find? If they find something wrong then the mayor looks bad, and I'm pretty sure these people have an innate tendency to not bite the hand that feeds them.
So they claim to do a scientific and statistical analysis of the data they collect. Well, statistics can tell you anything if tortured enough. So they discovered no decrease in complaints of misconduct against the police after body cameras were deployed. There's so many things that can be veiled in this conclusion. Perhaps a lot of police misconduct simply went unreported. Were the cameras always on when they should have been? Was there any punishment of officers based on the footage from these cameras?
If the city of DC wants to keep crime down then I'd like to see them do a study on their weapons laws. They had what was an effective ban on the ownership of firearms struck down a decade ago, and the ban on issuing concealed carry licenses struck down in the courts fairly recently. The DC government seems to think that keeping firearms from the city was an effective crime control method. Did they do a study on that? I suspect that they did but they didn't like the results so they kept it to themselves.
I'll have some faith in this government department actually doing their job of keeping the government in check when they release a report that is critical of how the government is performing.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
or, most complaints are bullshit, and the bitches stopped lying when there's evidence that the cops are following policy. However, there's no change in validated cop behavior, because most cops aren't shitheads.
You can assume that NPR won't ask any question whose answer would conflict with its political agenda. It's pretty obvious that the evidence on the cameras, assume it isn't "accidentally" deleted, would resolve most cases of police brutality almost instantly.
Yeah, NPR's political agenda is that they are against these cameras because NPR is such a "law and order" and right wing news organization. (Steve Bannon modeled Breitbart after NPR, FYI)
Soon, we'll see a study that shows that cameras cause cops to behave worse because they are all trying to be action movie stars and want to show off.
People seem to ignore the fact that a decade of oversight actually creates an organizational culture where doing shit that makes the whole force look bad isn't tolerated.
In cities where oversight is lax, you end up with an organizational culture that works to sweep things under the rug, stonewall journalists trying to find information about incidents, etc. The community stops trusting the police force to protect them because it isn't.
Threads like this are why I read comments first, article second. I come here because there is always a good chance someone has already debunked or analyzed the article before me. Good job, thanks.
would resolve most cases of police brutality almost instantly.
Unfortunately it is usually resolved in favor of the police. When evidence goes missing, it is treated as missing, no matter how questionable the circumstances. Take this case for example, when a Baltimore police officer allegedly raped a woman, the condom vanished from the evidence locker, and the prosecutors moved to continue the case without the DNA evidence. This stuff is scary!
We are assuming the cops were better behaved with or without the camera. But it could also be that the other group, citizens encountering cops, not knowing which cop might have a camera on and which didnâ(TM)t, decided not to complain as much since they realized that their claim could be easily debunked via video. Just a thought.
The difference between "wearing" a camera and "recording" with it.
This is ridiculous. One department already under oversight behaving itself.
If the cameras show no difference in the number of complaints against police even when there are now video records of what happened, this could mean that the police were not doing anything wrong before, and the cameras are just proving that. Would that be so surprising? The police have undergone endless training programs and public scrutiny for accusations of overly-violent behavior for many years now. Maybe their accusers are just not telling the truth.
Cameras aren't just about deterring bad behavior, they're also about being able to reliably deal with he said/she said situations where there are severe consequences for believing one party over the other.
Unfortunately, the way things are going is that the police have full, unrestricted access to the footage and regular people, including those in the footage, can only get at it with a court order. That's a recipe for turning bodycams into a tool of oppression because not only can the cops trawl through tons of footage looking for a recording they can use to smear people they don't like, it also means that defendants (both in the legal sense and in the court of public opinion) will have a difficult time finding footage that exculpates them.
All bodycam footage should be encrypted in the camera to prevent any form of information extraction beyond date, duration, location and the name of the officer wearing the bodycam. Then the decryption keys should be held by a 3rd party, probably the courts, who will only release the decryption keys in response to legitimate and verified requests.
Doesn't matter. So long as the police are not culpable to anyone but themselves, police misconduct will continue.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/us/baltimore-police-body-camera-videos/index.html
Consider this, which includes a video at the bottom of police officer planting drugs, walking away, turning on camera, then "finding" those same drugs.
A Baltimore news station showed the internal police department procedures for actually going through this footage. They are of course understaffed and there's way too much video. The guy basically goes through "I watch initial contact. See if there are any signs of anger in the officers or citizen's voices. If not, then I SKIP FORWARD A FEW MINUTES and see how the tone is there."
Until these cameras are ALWAYS ON, there are punishments for obstructing them, and the video is AVAILABLE OUTSIDE OF POLICE, what oversight is there?
You can assume that NPR won't ask any question whose answer would conflict with its political agenda.
Oh grow up. NPR reported the results of a study that somebody else conducted. This wasn't an investigative report, which takes a lot of work, it was simply rote reporting on public events.
It's pretty obvious that the evidence on the cameras, assume it isn't "accidentally" deleted, would resolve most cases of police brutality almost instantly.
Lolwut? Have you been paying attention? Its rare AF for it to make any difference for two reasons: the cop's "reasonable fear for their safety" loophole and racism makes juries willing to stretch that loophole wider than goatsecx.
I'll have some faith in this government department actually doing their job of keeping the government in check when they release a report that is critical of how the government is performing.
Unless the results match your predetermined expectations they don't count.
That's the very definition of a conspiracy theory.
Guys like you don't give a shit about actual oversight, just the pleasure of bias confirmation. Come up with a better criteria or just shut the fuck up already because you are not helping.
their training is to do eugenics. to kill off people, and beat them dead. the rich won't be exposed to this, so they feel ok authorizing the polices, and the constitution is so weak you don't have a right to a remedy when it occurs.
the only help these cameras have is providing evidence of the crime when otherwise police are able to simply lie and hide the true scenarios before a person is killed or beat up.
they can still hide some of the scenarios, they are actively deceiving the public using parallel construction, hiding classified orders and targets to take people out and hiding the information obtained from NSA/SOD/psi/ESP.
https://www.trumpsweapon.com/
Or perhaps there was nothing broken with police procedures and the whole thing was overblown. Now they have video evidence to back it up.
Once the cameras are ubiquitous, the police legacy of he said/she said system abuse (from either side) is permanently put onto a better track.
It's always the case that the most effective deterrents are the ones so effective, they never get used.
Contrary to displays of mind-numbing stupidity (intentional or inadvertent) that one sometimes encounters, one can not cross these "inactive" rows out of the game theory matrix without changing the equilibrium solution.
As for early adoption, probably the first rat onto the floating ship is the rat who determines there isn't going to an immediate differential that basically demonstrates how completely full of shit he was, not all that long ago. Every police force is going to clean up their act over the five year period before body cameras become standard issue, precisely to avoid this acute political embarrassment. Huh. Who would have guessed? Yet another robust game theoretic matrix, reporting for active duty: fear of foreseeable future embarrassment.
Police chiefs are notorious for weathering the kind of embarrassment that they can ultimate succeed in sending to hell.
That demonstrates power.
"We just lie to achieve our conviction rate" lies, however, closer to Putin's pay grade, than to your average Miller's Crossing-era chief of police.
The cop might not know?
Well I hope the camera can survive the washing machine then.
The article should provide if the number of complaints upheld increased or dropped.
Studies produce data - in this case about the DC Police department. It is not appropriate to assume this study tells us anything about other police departments. Repeating this study on other police departments and then comparing the studies might provide an indication of how the professionalism of various P.D.'s stand up to each other.
Operational failures are no reason to stop the data collection. More accountability needs to be had. More transparency of the video needs to be made.
To be useful, they need to do a study where police misconduct is rampant. Like St. Louis, or Baltimore.
You mean, where violent crime is rampant, and cops' lives are far, far more at risk? Yeah, that's what you actually meant.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's been 6 months since Ferguson voters overwhelmingly approved bodycams for Ferguson cops. It's only been in the last week or so that the city website has even acknowledged the vote happened and the requirement exists. And less progress has been made on acquiring them, as best we can tell.
We'll see how long it takes for the next step to occur.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
It doesn't surprise me AT ALL that the cameras aren't (reported as) changing police behavior at all.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO WORKING METHOD TO HOLD POLICE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
Period fucking dot.
People know this. Cops know this. Politicians know this but pretend otherwise.
After numerous cases with full video of police doing things directly against their own rules, laws, and ethics and the cops almost universally getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist ... why would one more video of the same actually matter? Especially when half of them can be disabled, covered, or left off their person when inconvenient?
The cameras simply serve to ignite public outrage further
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.