If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Police departments oppose the use of body cameras on their officers ... Because of what might NOT be recorded   (foxnews.com) divider line 161
    More: Ironic, high-definition video, Rialto, data storage device, United States Department of Justice, cameras  
•       •       •

14596 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Mar 2014 at 3:10 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



161 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-16 02:33:26 PM  
Officer Glasshole?
 
2014-03-16 03:16:45 PM  
"Change is coming and it will show us for the assholes that we are.  We don't want the truth coming out."


All the real data that comes along with the camera systems show a massive decrease in officer complaints and a decrease in the need for force.  It also puts the officers in a better position when dealing with people.
 
2014-03-16 03:18:17 PM  
Um, subby... Where in the article does it say that "police departments oppose the use of body cameras on their officers?" The article seems to say the opposite. The article says that expanded use of body cameras is causing concerns for the privacy of both the officers and the public that police departments are trying to address through changes in policy. The article even gives a couple examples of when body cameras have proved beneficial to police departments.
 
2014-03-16 03:19:04 PM  
You can see the Lawsuits in the offing...

1- why was the camera turned on?
2- or worse; why did you turn the camera off?
3- subpoena the files... from start date/time group to ending.
4- you violated my privacy/ recorded audio/ recorded video...
5- because you didn't record me, it would have shown my innocence.

Lawsuit circus; Loose/ loose/ but a win for the lawyers!
 
2014-03-16 03:21:14 PM  
Hey police, if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to hide. You couldn't possibly be bothered by 100% surveillance uptime. I mean, that's what you tell us.
 
2014-03-16 03:24:11 PM  

grinding_journalist: Hey police, if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to hide. You couldn't possibly be bothered by 100% surveillance uptime. I mean, that's what you tell us.


Exactly. How about we have cameras follow the head of the NSA 24/7/365?
 
2014-03-16 03:25:00 PM  
"...the lack of clear guidelines on the cameras' use could potentially undermine departments' goals..."

"Could potentially." Or, you know, "could."

/pet peeve
//potentially dangerous
///potential threat
 
2014-03-16 03:25:08 PM  
Fark you. Shut up and turn on the farking camera and do your farking job. Welcome to the real world where most of us live with the consequences of our actions. Tough shiat, you can't fark up and hide it anymore. You're afraid you won't be able to badmouth your boss? Once again, tough shiat. Man up and act like an adult. The free farking ride of responsibility-free job performance is over.

P.S. You're only in this predicament because you abused the system.
 
2014-03-16 03:29:26 PM  

Brian Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band: it takes a good body camera yadda yadda to defeat a bad body camera yadda yadda


I don't think you're yadda yadda-ing right.
 
2014-03-16 03:29:36 PM  

grinding_journalist: You couldn't possibly be bothered by 100% surveillance uptime. I mean, that's what you tell us.


The article says this: "They say, however, that the lack of clear guidelines on the cameras' use could potentially undermine departments' goals of creating greater accountability of officers and jeopardize the privacy of both the public and law enforcement officers."

So, according to the article, one of the concerns of police departments is that the cameras may jeopardize the privacy of the public. Yet you claim the police feel that the public's privacy isn't a concern when the article says just the opposite.
 
2014-03-16 03:31:25 PM  
they need this to happen nationwide and the sooner the better.
 
2014-03-16 03:32:51 PM  

CruiserTwelve: So, according to the article, one of the concerns of police departments is that the cameras may jeopardize the privacy of the public. Yet you claim the police feel that the public's privacy isn't a concern when the article says just the opposite.


There is absolutely NO WAY that the police would say something specifically to appease the public when they're actually just covering their own asses down the road. Nothing like that has ever happened or been done by any organization or group.

/hope your detector isn't broken
 
2014-03-16 03:33:59 PM  
sorry but there can be no expectation of privacy for a public servant on the clock doing his job out in the public domain.
I think the SCOTUS ruled on this one already.
 
2014-03-16 03:35:34 PM  

JerkStore: P.S. You're only in this predicament because you abused the system.


What "predicament" are you talking about? The article says that police departments favor the use of cameras and their use is expanding. The issue isn't opposition to the cameras, but rather that they are creating privacy concerns for both the public and the police.

Would you like to be forced to wear a camera during private conversations with your co-workers? Would you feel comfortable talking to a cop about a possibly embarrassing situation knowing you're being recorded?
 
2014-03-16 03:35:47 PM  

Swampmaster: You can see the Lawsuits in the offing...

1- why was the camera turned on?
2- or worse; why did you turn the camera off?
3- subpoena the files... from start date/time group to ending.
4- you violated my privacy/ recorded audio/ recorded video...
5- because you didn't record me, it would have shown my innocence.

Lawsuit circus; Loose/ loose/ but a win for the lawyers!



The police are funded by taxes and derive their  authority through the state.  So if we, the citizens of said state and more importantly the payers of said taxes want police to wear cameras when they are on the job, police officers have two choices:  wear the cameras or find a new line of work.
 
2014-03-16 03:37:29 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Um, subby... Where in the article does it say that "police departments oppose the use of body cameras on their officers?" The article seems to say the opposite.


Ah, but the headline has to be click-bait or it isn't happening.

The article says that expanded use of body cameras is causing concerns for the privacy of both the officers and the public that police departments are trying to address through changes in policy.

Doubt that protecting the privacy of the public is a major concern for the departments and officers' unions.  The biggest issue is making a rule about when and how the officer may turn the camera and/or audio off.  The narrowest guideline for video would be only turn off in a bathroom, locker room or similar place where people have a reasonable privacy expectation not to be photographed.  Guidelines that give the officer a lot of discretion over when the device is recording are not adequate IMO.
 
2014-03-16 03:37:40 PM  

grinding_journalist: There is absolutely NO WAY that the police would say something specifically to appease the public when they're actually just covering their own asses down the road.


Sigh...

What's the point of a discussion when you're going to just yell "you lie!" when you hear something that opposes your viewpoint?
 
2014-03-16 03:41:04 PM  

Swampmaster: You can see the Lawsuits in the offing...

1- why was the camera turned on?
2- or worse; why did you turn the camera off?
3- subpoena the files... from start date/time group to ending.
4- you violated my privacy/ recorded audio/ recorded video...
5- because you didn't record me, it would have shown my innocence.

Lawsuit circus; Loose/ loose/ but a win for the lawyers!


Counterpoint, from TFA itself:

The police department in Rialto, Calif., concluded a yearlong University of Cambridge study last year that found an 89 percent drop in complaints against officers during the camera trial.

89 goddamned percent reduction.  That alone shows that the problem is overwhelmingly officers pulling shiat because they can get away with it, and making them actually man up and do their jobs properly has saved the department form 9 in 10 lawsuits already.

// Also, legally if you're interacting with a uniformed police officer you aren't in private so your privacy's not being invaded, they wouldn't even let you file that one.
 
2014-03-16 03:41:40 PM  
Hell- cameras that are subject to open records requests can be troublesome for the lack of discretion alone. Think of car wrecks or other scenes where medical information is being discussed. State troopers I work with are allowed to say whatever they want even with cameras rolling as long as it is said out of the public's earshot. Once LEOs get more used to the cameras there will be less resistance however there will always be those who attempt to circumvent the oversight and will find a way. There are some pretty cool bodycam videos that are available online as is. Would be cool to be able to show off in a way about what action they see.
 
2014-03-16 03:42:20 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Would you like to be forced to wear a camera during private conversations with your co-workers?


I don't work for the city/state/nation and have no authority with which to ruin people's lives. So no, I don't want to wear one but you'd be hard pressed to find a good reason for me to.

Would you feel comfortable talking to a cop about a possibly embarrassing situation knowing you're being recorded?


Why would you discuss it with the cop? What situation can you think of that would be embarrassing for the individual being interviewed where it was NECESSARY for them to discuss it, and have it entered as evidence? People need to shut the fark up around cops, it's not their business.
 
2014-03-16 03:42:24 PM  

grinding_journalist: Hey police, if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to hide. You couldn't possibly be bothered by 100% surveillance uptime. I mean, that's what you tell us.


This times a million.

The only thing I worry about is that it will make witnesses more wary of coming forward in high crime areas.

But I'm sure something can be figured out there.
 
2014-03-16 03:42:40 PM  
It's a cost issue.

Having these cameras in addition to, or replacing, dashboard cameras that don't get the precise view will undermine years of training officers to yell, "STOP RESISTING! HE'S GOING FOR MY GUN!" off-camera before tasing, shooting, or beating the living shiat out of otherwise cooperative people they simply don't like.
 
2014-03-16 03:44:44 PM  

CruiserTwelve: grinding_journalist: There is absolutely NO WAY that the police would say something specifically to appease the public when they're actually just covering their own asses down the road.

Sigh...

What's the point of a discussion when you're going to just yell "you lie!" when you hear something that opposes your viewpoint?


I'm not saying they're lying- in fact, I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying they're telling a "truth" (public privacy concerns) to get what they actually want (no surveillance of their activities).

Nice attempt to discredit the speaker, though. Nothing like a personal attack to sidestep an issue.
 
2014-03-16 03:45:40 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: The biggest issue is making a rule about when and how the officer may turn the camera and/or audio off. The narrowest guideline for video would be only turn off in a bathroom, locker room or similar place where people have a reasonable privacy expectation not to be photographed. Guidelines that give the officer a lot of discretion over when the device is recording are not adequate IMO.


This is the problem: If the cops turn the camera off at all, it will create an argument that they are covering something up. Even if they turn the camera off while they write a report or use the bathroom, a lawyer (and certain Farkers) will claim that they were doing something evil during that time. On the other hand, is it reasonable to expect a cop to record private conversations with co-workers, their supervisors, or even, in certain circumstances, members of the public?

As the article states, cops are increasingly accepting cameras as they realize that they are likely to exonerate them from false accusations. Complaints go down steeply when cameras are in use because the cops tend to behave better and because false complaints are far less likely to be made. This increasing use causes other issues that are difficult to address.
 
2014-03-16 03:46:11 PM  

Thisbymaster: All the real data that comes along with the camera systems show a massive decrease in officer complaints and a decrease in the need for force.  It also puts the officers in a better position when dealing with people.


It also improves accountability.  Which a lot of officers can't stand to have.
 
2014-03-16 03:48:01 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Um, subby... Where in the article does it say that "police departments oppose the use of body cameras on their officers?" The article seems to say the opposite. The article says that expanded use of body cameras is causing concerns for the privacy of both the officers and the public that police departments are trying to address through changes in policy. The article even gives a couple examples of when body cameras have proved beneficial to police departments.


It's the expanded part. That's code. It's one thing to strap a camera on a rookie not in the know but it's another to put them on all our senior officers who are beyond reproach.

But you knew that.
 
2014-03-16 03:48:27 PM  

Jim_Callahan: 89 goddamned percent reduction. That alone shows that the problem is overwhelmingly officers pulling shiat because they can get away with it, and making them actually man up and do their jobs properly has saved the department form 9 in 10 lawsuits already.


Not necessarily. While that is certainly part of the reduction, false complaints, which are many against cops, are almost eliminated. When someone says they want to make a complaint against an officer and they are told the interaction is on video, quite often the response is "never mind."
 
2014-03-16 03:49:00 PM  
If I were a cop I would oppose as just being more stuff you have to carry . body armor, cuffs, baton, radio, gun, taser/mace, flashlight and now a body camera. For a cop that spends most of his time in a car not too bad but for a cop on regular foot patrol i think it can get to be too much.
 
2014-03-16 03:50:32 PM  
The show Cops seems to be ok with years of camera recordings.
 
2014-03-16 03:50:57 PM  

CruiserTwelve: This increasing use causes other issues that are difficult to address.


So bite the bullet and take on the difficult work of writing policies and developing training programs. "It's hard" is no excuse. It's also hard to be a citizen who gets assaulted or thrown in prison because of corruption and psychotic policemen.
 
2014-03-16 03:51:20 PM  
Of course government sanctioned professionally trained lairs don't want something that would show the truth.
 
2014-03-16 03:52:40 PM  
Approves:

imageshack.us
 
2014-03-16 03:53:23 PM  

hasty ambush: If I were a cop I would oppose as just being more stuff you have to carry . body armor, cuffs, baton, radio, gun, taser/mace, flashlight and now a body camera. For a cop that spends most of his time in a car not too bad but for a cop on regular foot patrol i think it can get to be too much.


If the camera pins to the shirt as shown in the article, it can't weigh more than a few ounces.

/insert fat cop joke here
//something something eat one less doughnut at breakfast and the overall officer weight will be the same
 
2014-03-16 03:54:05 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: The show Cops seems to be ok with years of camera recordings.


Well yeah, cameras are easy to tolerate when they always depict you as the righteous hero, there to protect and defend his fellow man from injustice. And there's editing.
 
2014-03-16 03:55:52 PM  

gingerjet: It also improves accountability.   Which a lot of officers can't stand to have.


Where do you get this crap? You really think cops don't want to be held accountable? What cops fear is being misjudged. Even the most ethical, moral and legal actions of cops can and are heavily scrutinized by the public. Statements made by cops are taken out of context and words are twisted to support certain misbeliefs. After so many false accusations, cops become mistrustful of everyone.

A good example is when some cop get accused of being a criminal because a cop 2,000 miles away did something evil. Of course THAT never happens, does it?

Cops don't mind being held accountable for their own actions. It's when they're expected to be accountable for every other cop's actions that a problem  is created.
 
2014-03-16 03:56:18 PM  

a particular individual: "...the lack of clear guidelines on the cameras' use could potentially undermine departments' goals..."

"Could potentially." Or, you know, "could."


You might could be right.  Or maybe you're just from up North where they talk funny.
 
2014-03-16 03:56:47 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: So bite the bullet and take on the difficult work of writing policies and developing training programs.


And that's exactly what the article says is presently occurring.
 
2014-03-16 03:58:56 PM  
Dont do anything illegal and you will have nothing to worry about, officer.
 
2014-03-16 04:00:16 PM  
Per the article:
Without strong policies, experts say, departments could lose the public's trust. The public needs to know cameras aren't only being turned on when it'll help officers. But there are certain moments such as during the interview of a sexual assault victim or talk with a confidential informant when filming may be sensitive or even compromise a case, said Bay Area attorney Mike Rains, whose firm often represents officers and has worked on body camera policies with departments.

CruiserTwelve
So, according to the article, one of the concerns of police departments is that the cameras may jeopardize the privacy of the public. Yet you claim the police feel that the public's privacy isn't a concern when the article says just the opposite.


Bullshiat. A drunk guy allegedly say "I am the lizard king" to a cop and that quote goes on the 10pm news without context. They are pushing for being able to turn it on and off whenever they want to.

Just say no to on and off buttons.
 
2014-03-16 04:01:35 PM  

RogermcAllen: If the camera pins to the shirt as shown in the article, it can't weigh more than a few ounces.


One of the issues we've seen with the cameras is that the smaller they are, the lower the battery life. Most of the test cops on my agency complain that the batteries go dead after about 4 hours into a 10 hour shift. If they turn the camera off and on to lengthen the battery life, the too often forget to turn it back on. Also, the fact that they turned it off in the first place creates a potential belief that they had it off intentionally to conceal bad behavior.

That's the very point of the article. As these cameras become more popular, they raise issues that are hard to deal with.
 
2014-03-16 04:01:56 PM  

CruiserTwelve: the camera off while they write a report or use the bathroom,


one of these is not like the other.

as to interviews with victims the tawdry details end up in the written report anyway? or don't they? do officers in your experience slant the report to "protect" the victim?

seriously if mary is being interviewed as the victim of rape (she had to give a guy oral sex) and she says: "um i had to um you know down there" and the officers says "did you have to give him oral sex?" and mary then says yes how's that different on tape on a paper report?
 
2014-03-16 04:02:07 PM  

Ted_Peppy: Of course government sanctioned professionally trained lairs don't want something that would show the truth.


Are they government sanctioned professionally trained secret volcano lairs?
 
2014-03-16 04:02:11 PM  

CruiserTwelve: gingerjet: It also improves accountability.   Which a lot of officers can't stand to have.

Where do you get this crap? You really think cops don't want to be held accountable? What cops fear is being misjudged. Even the most ethical, moral and legal actions of cops can and are heavily scrutinized by the public. Statements made by cops are taken out of context and words are twisted to support certain misbeliefs. After so many false accusations, cops become mistrustful of everyone.

A good example is when some cop get accused of being a criminal because a cop 2,000 miles away did something evil. Of course THAT never happens, does it?

Cops don't mind being held accountable for their own actions. It's when they're expected to be accountable for every other cop's actions that a problem  is created.


THEN STOP COVERING FOR THE CROOKED ONES.
 
2014-03-16 04:02:28 PM  
Star Trek covered this one.  Captain Kirk faced a Court Martial because a video showed him ejecting a pod with a crew member in it, causing the crew member's death.  Later on, we find out the crew member wasn't dead and falsified the video because he hated Kirk and wanted to frame him.  Good thing that sort of thing is safely in the realm of science fiction and that this kind of technology doesn't exist today...
 
2014-03-16 04:03:07 PM  
<i>Without strong policies, experts say, departments could lose the public's trust. </i>

Too late. Lost my trust a long time ago.
 
2014-03-16 04:05:18 PM  

Enemabag Jones: Bullshiat. A drunk guy allegedly say "I am the lizard king" to a cop and that quote goes on the 10pm news without context. They are pushing for being able to turn it on and off whenever they want to.


There's a context in which "I am the lizard king" is an appropriate statement to make to a cop?

No, the police aren't pushing to be able to turn the camera on and off at will. They want reasonable rules that will respect the privacy of both the cop and members of the public such as crime victims.
 
2014-03-16 04:05:20 PM  

grinding_journalist: CruiserTwelve: Would you like to be forced to wear a camera during private conversations with your co-workers?

I don't work for the city/state/nation and have no authority with which to ruin people's lives. So no, I don't want to wear one but you'd be hard pressed to find a good reason for me to.

Would you feel comfortable talking to a cop about a possibly embarrassing situation knowing you're being recorded?

Why would you discuss it with the cop? What situation can you think of that would be embarrassing for the individual being interviewed where it was NECESSARY for them to discuss it, and have it entered as evidence? People need to shut the fark up around cops, it's not their business.


1 - You're a sales conference IN Las Vegas and you figure taht since your wife is 2000 miles away you'll try some of what's on offer.  Long bad sotry short, you get robbed by a hooker, but the cops recover your property and attempt to return it to you, while wearing cameras.  Do you want to try to explain to the officer on camera why you just want to get your wallet and ring back and not press charges and just crawl back home to your wife, hoping that what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas?

2 - You hang out with bad peoiple but you're not such a bad guy yourself.  As such sometimes you give confidential info to the local beat cop.  Would you trust that the video that the cop is recording will stay 100% secret and never be turned over or accessed (even by accident) by the guy who you're informing on?

3 - You're the victim of a sexual assault and are giving the responding officers and initial statement.  Would you feel comfortable telling the officer the horrible details with the quiet glowing light there, reminding you that everything you say is being recorded and could be viewed later?

Those are 3 examples that I though off just off the top of my head.  I'm not saying that cops shouldn't be cammed up, they should.  But there has to be provisions in place that protect both the users and the public.  I'm certain the reductions in complaints are probably 65/35, cops not being abusive dicks/people seeing that a groundless complaint won't go anywhere.

And for those who say that we have a right to observe cops 24/7 as a result of their job, you sound just like those drooling idiots who complain about "Fart-bongo taking ANOTHER golf day!11!!!"

Get over yourselves.
 
2014-03-16 04:07:01 PM  
CruiserTwelve
Where do you get this crap? You really think cops don't want to be held accountable? What cops fear is being misjudged. Even the most ethical, moral and legal actions of cops can and are heavily scrutinized by the public. Statements made by cops are taken out of context and words are twisted to support certain misbeliefs. After so many false accusations, cops become mistrustful of everyone.
A good example is when some cop get accused of being a criminal because a cop 2,000 miles away did something evil. Of course THAT never happens, does it?
Cops don't mind being held accountable for their own actions. It's when they're expected to be accountable for every other cop's actions that a problem is created.


The thin blue line calls bullshiat on that. See some of the comments.
Link
 
2014-03-16 04:07:55 PM  

CruiserTwelve: 4tehsnowflakes: The biggest issue is making a rule about when and how the officer may turn the camera and/or audio off. The narrowest guideline for video would be only turn off in a bathroom, locker room or similar place where people have a reasonable privacy expectation not to be photographed. Guidelines that give the officer a lot of discretion over when the device is recording are not adequate IMO.

This is the problem: If the cops turn the camera off at all, it will create an argument that they are covering something up. Even if they turn the camera off while they write a report or use the bathroom, a lawyer (and certain Farkers) will claim that they were doing something evil during that time. On the other hand, is it reasonable to expect a cop to record private conversations with co-workers, their supervisors, or even, in certain circumstances, members of the public?

As the article states, cops are increasingly accepting cameras as they realize that they are likely to exonerate them from false accusations. Complaints go down steeply when cameras are in use because the cops tend to behave better and because false complaints are far less likely to be made. This increasing use causes other issues that are difficult to address.


I think video is easier to make a rule for than audio.

On audio, must officers sign up to have every word spoken while on patrol recorded?  The scenario in which LEO is on a break and talking to a co-worker about her marriage?  What's the public interest in recording that conversation, other than that there might not be time to turn the system back on before springing into action?  OTOH, that creates a pretty big loophole.  Warning, imagining yourself working in an environment where everything you say is recorded may engender unexpected concern for the privacy rights of police.
 
2014-03-16 04:08:29 PM  
CruiserTwelve
Enemabag Jones: Bullshiat. A drunk guy allegedly say "I am the lizard king" to a cop and that quote goes on the 10pm news without context. They are pushing for being able to turn it on and off whenever they want to.
There's a context in which "I am the lizard king" is an appropriate statement to make to a cop?
No, the police aren't pushing to be able to turn the camera on and off at will. They want reasonable rules that will respect the privacy of both the cop and members of the public such as crime victims.


Because you are the moderate voice of reason in these matters?
 
Displayed 50 of 161 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report