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  
•       •       •

17793 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Mar 2014 at 3:10 PM (41 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 04:09:49 PM  

CruiserTwelve: That's the very point of the article. As these cameras become more popular, they raise issues that are hard to deal with.


They are *not* hard to deal with. A couple of engineers, a lawyer, a union rep, and a technical writer could blow through the process in a couple of days and have it ready for approval. Maybe it's hard for you, but it's not hard for administrators.
 
2014-03-16 04:12:58 PM  

Oldiron_79: 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?


No worries. Soon we will. Privacy is a technologically-obsolete concept. The only remaining question is who controls the cameras/videos. So far in the US at least, the public is holding its own against the government.\

There's no way to prevent having a "cameras everywhere" society, short of collapsing our whole civilization. Most people haven't noticed how far it's gone, but just take a look at the amazon.com listing for "hidden cameras". Last time I checked, they sold over 7,000 models. I get a real kick out of Google Glass hysteria...like a perv would pay $1,500 for GG to take a 10-minute video of your kid in the pool, when he could pay only $50 for a camera that looks like a Bic lighter that'll record in higher quality for an hour or more.

There's an open-source video drone the size of a hummingbird that can see/hear everything in your living room by perching on something outside the window. The main limit on those right now is battery life. Elon Musk's upcoming "gigafactory" for lithium-ion batteries is supposed to drop their price tenfold, which would certainly help.

Not saying I approve; merely that I've surrendered to the inevitible. Nations have tried several times to suppress new technologies. Name one success story.
 
2014-03-16 04:13:10 PM  

Curious: 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?


Do you think Mary would be more or less likely to honestly answer that question knowing that she was being recorded on video? Do you think rape victims would be less likely to report the crime if they know they'll have to describe it while being videotaped? What if the victim requests that the interview not be taped but the officer's policy says they can't turn the recorder off? Those are issues that need to be addressed.

With sensitive crimes, such as rape, cops sometimes work very hard to earn the trust of the victim so they can get accurate and honest answers to their questions. If a victim knows they are being taped, that becomes just one more obstacle to overcome. "Don't worry Mary, the video won't show up on You Tube," even as the cop knows it may eventually be released to a defense attorney and he and his agency will no longer have control over it.
 
2014-03-16 04:15:08 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.


I agree and this is a point where camera/audio recording come into play. If the entire context of how "I am the lizard king" was said was viewable by the recording equipment was available, then it would be fair for everyone. Police don't have the right to stop start and edit it at their whim.

If it is a matter of making sure some random statement against a superior was not used against him, I am ok with that.
 
2014-03-16 04:15:32 PM  
Assuming all protocols are followed in the first place, wouldn't all the gory and embarrassing details have gone into the reports anyway? How would having a video do anything more than provide a more verbatim copy?
 
2014-03-16 04:17:27 PM  

Enemabag Jones: The thin blue line calls bullshiat on that. See some of the comments.


I'm not arguing that there are no asshole cops. I readily admit that there are. That has nothing to do with the current discussion though. Are there cops that will cry like babies when they are told they must wear a camera? Of course there are. But most will welcome the opportunity to have video evidence when they are improperly accused of wrongdoing. Most cops will even be happy to see that their fellow cops that are assholes are going to have to change their behavior or be held accountable for being assholes.
 
2014-03-16 04:18:16 PM  
CruiserTwelve
Do you think Mary would be more or less likely to honestly answer that question knowing that she was being recorded on video? Do you think rape victims would be less likely to report the crime if they know they'll have to describe it while being videotaped? What if the victim requests that the interview not be taped but the officer's policy says they can't turn the recorder off? Those are issues that need to be addressed.
With sensitive crimes, such as rape, cops sometimes work very hard to earn the trust of the victim so they can get accurate and honest answers to their questions. If a victim knows they are being taped, that becomes just one more obstacle to overcome. "Don't worry Mary, the video won't show up on You Tube," even as the cop knows it may eventually be released to a defense attorney and he and his agency will no longer have control over it


I don't see this line of logic ending as any other way but cops would ending up having the right to edit out 'sensitive' parts or turn the camera off and on at will. If they want someone to be nice and cuddly they call in the detectives with the suits to play good cop. First responders can't.
 
2014-03-16 04:20:18 PM  
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.

Unless said uniformed officer is giving me the UFIA?
 
2014-03-16 04:20:28 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Of course there are. But most will welcome the opportunity to have video evidence when they are improperly accused of wrongdoing.


Yeah.

Because when you're accused of wrongdoing without any physical evidence, and it's your word against the citizen's word, police departments are renowned for jumping to action to incriminate the officers based on the word of the citizen.

/STOP RESISTING! HE'S GOING FOR MY GUN!
 
2014-03-16 04:28:10 PM  
CruiserTwelve
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.

I'm not arguing that there are no asshole cops. I readily admit that there are. That has nothing to do with the current discussion though. Are there cops that will cry like babies when they are told they must wear a camera? Of course there are. But most will welcome the opportunity to have video evidence when they are improperly accused of wrongdoing. Most cops will even be happy to see that their fellow cops that are assholes are going to have to change their behavior or be held accountable for being assholes.


So you are saying the good apples don't mind being held accountable for their actions. But the bad apples will.

The reality is any cop that is good and speaks up gets run out of town. Any cop that learns to play by the rules will eventually support the decision of the bad cop just by not speaking up or not seeing anything.

I am all for any mechanism that will run the bad cops out of town so the possibly good cops don't have to cover for the bad cops. Recording everything, or my idea, liability insurance for LEOs. The short version, if it is in the manual, it is the dept's issue, if not in the manual, the officer's issue.
 
2014-03-16 04:30:27 PM  
img.fark.net

Definitely DOES NOT APPROVE!!!!
 
2014-03-16 04:32:35 PM  

TheOther: 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?


This winter is was ice lairs...

/deserved that
 
2014-03-16 04:33:43 PM  

BMFPitt: 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.


Would a voice scrambled/blurred recording, if certified by a judge that no other alterations were made other than those necessary to protect a witness' identity, work? Because both of those features are available in even the most basic of editing software.
 
2014-03-16 04:40:51 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Enemabag Jones: The thin blue line calls bullshiat on that. See some of the comments.

I'm not arguing that there are no asshole cops. I readily admit that there are. That has nothing to do with the current discussion though. Are there cops that will cry like babies when they are told they must wear a camera? Of course there are. But most will welcome the opportunity to have video evidence when they are improperly accused of wrongdoing. Most cops will even be happy to see that their fellow cops that are assholes are going to have to change their behavior or be held accountable for being assholes.


See that, Farkdom?
That's how you pull a 180.

You can't have it both ways: When you're on the job, you're in public. Period.
One other small note: You know who the turd cops are, so why the fark aren't you expelling them?
 
2014-03-16 04:43:10 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: CruiserTwelve: Enemabag Jones: The thin blue line calls bullshiat on that. See some of the comments.

I'm not arguing that there are no asshole cops. I readily admit that there are. That has nothing to do with the current discussion though. Are there cops that will cry like babies when they are told they must wear a camera? Of course there are. But most will welcome the opportunity to have video evidence when they are improperly accused of wrongdoing. Most cops will even be happy to see that their fellow cops that are assholes are going to have to change their behavior or be held accountable for being assholes.

See that, Farkdom?
That's how you pull a 180.

You can't have it both ways: When you're on the job, you're in public. Period.
One other small note: You know who the turd cops are, so why the fark aren't you expelling them?


demaL-demaL-yeH: CruiserTwelve: Enemabag Jones: The thin blue line calls bullshiat on that. See some of the comments.

I'm not arguing that there are no asshole cops. I readily admit that there are. That has nothing to do with the current discussion though. Are there cops that will cry like babies when they are told they must wear a camera? Of course there are. But most will welcome the opportunity to have video evidence when they are improperly accused of wrongdoing. Most cops will even be happy to see that their fellow cops that are assholes are going to have to change their behavior or be held accountable for being assholes.

See that, Farkdom?
That's how you pull a 180.

You can't have it both ways: When you're on the job, you're in public. Period.
One other small note: You know who the turd cops are, so why the fark aren't you expelling them?


You must admit, "Serpico" would have been a pretty boring movie if that's the way things worked.
 
2014-03-16 04:45:52 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Those are issues that need to be addressed.


says you. to me they are bullshiat and something to hide behind. is being recorded any more invasive than a rape kit? doesn't what goes on in the interview room recorded? yes there needs to be sensitivity in the investigation of sexual crimes but given the current low reporting rate i wouldn't brag on the police's handling of these so far. the reporting rate could easily be taken to mean women have very low expectations of justice if they report. i don't see how a camera makes that worse.

but hey you from your vantage point tend to see the best in LEOs while i from my experience tend to see the opposite.
 
2014-03-16 04:47:55 PM  
"It is all bullzhit and it is bad for ya" said The Master.

Technology has changed the world of "Protecting and Serving".
Yesterday is old and broken and gone.
Tech coming the day after tomorrow will make all this posturing, blustering and lying old, broken and gone.
None of the fools quoted in TFA indicate having any clue.

Adapt or die(as you deserve).

/"die" used figuratively, no "real" threat made nor implied, for full disclaimer contact: who ya gonna call
 
2014-03-16 04:48:42 PM  
According to these comments, it would seem that every cop in the US is barging down your doors, raping your women, and stealing your money.

What ever happened to giving officers the benefit of the doubt? Our job is extremely difficult and to be on your P's and Q's 100% of the time is downright impossible. So get off your farking highhorse and give them a break. A few bad cops doesn't mean that they're all bad.
 
2014-03-16 04:49:25 PM  
There are a lot of things I could say in this thread. Such as the fact that as a cop I use a body camera myself. But there are far too many frothy-mouthed idiots spewing hate to really have an impact.
 
2014-03-16 04:49:34 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 don't see an issue with the officers only being able to turn the camera off while in the station, or sub-station. This means they can have privacy while using the bathroom and can still talk "off the record". Any other time you are out in the public and thus will be recording.
 
2014-03-16 04:55:50 PM  
taurusowner
There are a lot of things I could say in this thread. Such as the fact that as a cop I use a body camera myself. But there are far too many frothy-mouthed idiots spewing hate to really have an impact.


I like honest conversation, and there are some people that can unnecessary things here. But this isn't a polite family conversation or a conversation at a cop bar. Your default assumptions may not be given respect .
 
2014-03-16 04:56:34 PM  

ReluctantPaladin: Get over yourselves.


Your dissonance is pretty impressive.

Example #1: Either you go to a legal whorehouse and don't get robbed, or you're committing a crime and learned an expensive lesson. Not a relevant example.

#2: You're a POLICE INFORMANT. Why should any informant trust anyone that they pass info to? A written report is as damning as video. Not a relevant example.

#3. Would you feel comfortable relating the details of a sexual assault, knowing that they'll be written down, and could be read again later? Not a relevant example.


ReluctantPaladin: And for those who say that we have a right to observe cops 24/7 as a result of their job


...when they're on the job. We give them authority over other humans, so as such they have to be held to a higher standard than other humans. A cop murdering someone should receive a harsher penalty than a civilian.
 
2014-03-16 04:57:31 PM  

SkeletorUpInHere: According to these comments, it would seem that every cop in the US is barging down your doors, raping your women, and stealing your money.

What ever happened to giving officers the benefit of the doubt? Our job is extremely difficult and to be on your P's and Q's 100% of the time is downright impossible. So get off your farking highhorse and give them a break. A few bad cops doesn't mean that they're all bad.


And we all know that the only way to protect the honest hard-working Joes is to protect the power-hungry scum who think they're above the law because they have a uniform and badge.

One bad cop can destroy someone else's life forever. You may have up and down days, but following procedures should be the minimal measure of competency. If you can't do that every day, you should not be a police officer.

We expect it of air traffic controllers and people in other hazardous industries. It's not too much to expect from police officers.
 
2014-03-16 05:00:15 PM  
josefbrandenburg.com
 
2014-03-16 05:03:41 PM  
Without strong policies, experts say, departments could lose the public's trust.

Lolololololo (as far as you care to ololol).
 
2014-03-16 05:05:46 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: BMFPitt: 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.

Would a voice scrambled/blurred recording, if certified by a judge that no other alterations were made other than those necessary to protect a witness' identity, work? Because both of those features are available in even the most basic of editing software.


I doubt it would make much difference. If you provided info on some gang member, they can probably figure out who you are based on just a transcript, or just kill everyone who is a maybe.

But even if we lost all those witnesses, the amount of corruption we could eliminate would be worth it.
 
2014-03-16 05:08:28 PM  

kling_klang_bed: [img.fark.net image 193x261]

Definitely DOES NOT APPROVE!!!!



Josh?
 
2014-03-16 05:08:51 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: SkeletorUpInHere: According to these comments, it would seem that every cop in the US is barging down your doors, raping your women, and stealing your money.

What ever happened to giving officers the benefit of the doubt? Our job is extremely difficult and to be on your P's and Q's 100% of the time is downright impossible. So get off your farking highhorse and give them a break. A few bad cops doesn't mean that they're all bad.

And we all know that the only way to protect the honest hard-working Joes is to protect the power-hungry scum who think they're above the law because they have a uniform and badge.

One bad cop can destroy someone else's life forever. You may have up and down days, but following procedures should be the minimal measure of competency. If you can't do that every day, you should not be a police officer.

We expect it of air traffic controllers and people in other hazardous industries. It's not too much to expect from police officers.


The problem with your reply 8 that in the world of police officers, decisions are never black and white. In most other jobs there is, but with police there are infinite number of variables to an infinite number of situations.

That being coupled with the fact that there's a target on our chest at all times, I would hope you see why cops are wary.

For instance, dash cameras, which are a vital tool, may not catch everything and have often been used in an attempt to twist things. Just yesterday I watched the dash cam of an officer who fired on an individual walking away from him. This was plastered all over the news. After getting to the bottom of the story, his partner, who also had a dash cam pulled up seconds before. The suspect pulled a shiny metallic object out of his pocket and pointed towards the officer in a threatening manner, then turned away putting the object back in his pocket.

The officer then shot the suspect in the back effectively eliminating the threat.

The point of the story is that the news got a hold of one side of the story and made this cops life a living hell. In no other line of work is a person scrutinized as hard as a police officer for being in the right.

/end rant
 
2014-03-16 05:09:29 PM  
In all honesty, more and more officers/responders wearing cameras will actually help minimize the risk of video tampering. Might be able to turn off your camera, but you don't know if anyone else is recording.

The sensitive details need to be documented accurately. In constitutional law you should have been taught the importance of making sure quotes are exact without officer paraphrasing. Audio recording simplifies this process. A quote can be taken out of context. A video of somebody yelling "Fark the police!" (mild compared to what is actually said) will show their state of mind and the situation instead of them saying "I was upset and wanted the officer to leave" as they may later interpret under guidance of counsel.

As far as officer privacy- only have the times around sensitive events or conversations be accessible for the sake of the courts. Have the officer or department be obligated to provide the video from the time they get out of the car to the time they terminate contact with the civilians. Don't allow it to be edited imbetween but allow the department to remove the extraneous footage. It wouldn't be hard to add onto the same technology dashcams use where they automatically record time before lightbar activation/excessive g-force events, etc. Instead have it work for when they step out of the car to until they finish the call. Have an automatic system constantly recording and deleting unnecessary footage that will record 30 seconds or so before  a critical event- sound of a GSW/yelling/etc.
 
2014-03-16 05:09:48 PM  
All the cops are criminals and the sinners saints. Didn't click Fox news link.
 
2014-03-16 05:09:58 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Even if they turn the camera off while they write a report or use the bathroom

. . .

If no one else has mentioned it . . .

Abner Louima
 
2014-03-16 05:13:09 PM  
Both the cop haters and the cop apologists readily admit that (the haters) that there are a few good cops out there and (the apologists) that there are a few bad cops out there.

If these cameras are going to reduce false accusations against good cops and either force bad cops to behave better or be removed from their jobs; then we have to find a way to get them onto more cops.

It doesn't matter if you have a number of positive experiences dealing with cops, all it takes is one bad one to change someone's view forever.

Since the unfortunate incident of 2010; I don't like cops, I don't trust cops, I don't want to deal with cops.  I will call them in an emergency but for example but for example, I was assaulted in the street a few months ago.  There was no way in a million years I was going to subject myself to dealing with them.  They can make it so difficult that one wonders if all these crime reductions that are getting touted all the time are just a product of making it so unpleasant to report a crime.   But I digress.
 
2014-03-16 05:16:45 PM  

SkeletorUpInHere: Lenny_da_Hog: SkeletorUpInHere: According to these comments, it would seem that every cop in the US is barging down your doors, raping your women, and stealing your money.

What ever happened to giving officers the benefit of the doubt? Our job is extremely difficult and to be on your P's and Q's 100% of the time is downright impossible. So get off your farking highhorse and give them a break. A few bad cops doesn't mean that they're all bad.

And we all know that the only way to protect the honest hard-working Joes is to protect the power-hungry scum who think they're above the law because they have a uniform and badge.

One bad cop can destroy someone else's life forever. You may have up and down days, but following procedures should be the minimal measure of competency. If you can't do that every day, you should not be a police officer.

We expect it of air traffic controllers and people in other hazardous industries. It's not too much to expect from police officers.

The problem with your reply 8 that in the world of police officers, decisions are never black and white. In most other jobs there is, but with police there are infinite number of variables to an infinite number of situations.

That being coupled with the fact that there's a target on our chest at all times, I would hope you see why cops are wary.

For instance, dash cameras, which are a vital tool, may not catch everything and have often been used in an attempt to twist things. Just yesterday I watched the dash cam of an officer who fired on an individual walking away from him. This was plastered all over the news. After getting to the bottom of the story, his partner, who also had a dash cam pulled up seconds before. The suspect pulled a shiny metallic object out of his pocket and pointed towards the officer in a threatening manner, then turned away putting the object back in his pocket.

The officer then shot the suspect in the back effectively eliminating the threat.

The point of the story is that the news got a hold of one side of the story and made this cops life a living hell. In no other line of work is a person scrutinized as hard as a police officer for being in the right.

/end rant


If you cant handle it...then maybe you shoukdnt be a cop?
 
2014-03-16 05:19:38 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.


If cops are so willing to be held accountable then why is it that outright lying on their reports seems to be the rule not the exception?
Why is is that a helluva lot of cops don't want some citizen recording their actions while they interact with the public?
Is it because they are so righteous that they just want to be given an equal shake when the shiat hits the fan or is it because cops know, for the most part, they can lie with impunity and face zero consequences for that lying?
Lying that would otherwise land anyone else in jail.
 
2014-03-16 05:19:41 PM  

Jim_Callahan: 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.


I can't say I agree. That wonderful 89% reduction is a result of some combination of reduced abusive actions by police AND reduced frivolous/dishonest complaints by those who now know the recording will refute their claims.

The proportion each represents would be impossible to determine.

Either way it's a positive though.
 
2014-03-16 05:19:53 PM  

SkeletorUpInHere: The problem with your reply 8 that in the world of police officers, decisions are never black and white. In most other jobs there is, but with police there are infinite number of variables to an infinite number of situations.

That being coupled with the fact that there's a target on our chest at all times, I would hope you see why cops are wary.

For instance, dash cameras, which are a vital tool, may not catch everything and have often been used in an attempt to twist things. Just yesterday I watched the dash cam of an officer who fired on an individual walking away from him. This was plastered all over the news. After getting to the bottom of the story, his partner, who also had a dash cam pulled up seconds before. The suspect pulled a shiny metallic object out of his pocket and pointed towards the officer in a threatening manner, then turned away putting the object back in his pocket.

The officer then shot the suspect in the back effectively eliminating the threat.

The point of the story is that the news got a hold of one side of the story and made this cops life a living hell. In no other line of work is a person scrutinized as hard as a police officer for being in the right.


Yes. And as has been shown numerous times by citizen video, officers who know they're off camera from the dash-cam, but still having audio recorded, routinely yell things like "STOP RESISTING" before they beat and arrest someone who is clearly not resisting, or even breaking a law -- Look up "Photography is not a Crime" for dozens and dozens of examples of people being arrested for videotaping, with the officer yelling false status to be recorded by audio and not captured by video. They *know* what they're doing when they do this . These body cameras can eliminate that abuse.

Regardless of when you have to make decisions, you must make them within policy and procedures -- policies and procedures *are* black and white, and violating them is never serving justice. I don't care if your wife just left you, or your teen-age daughter came home drunk the night before, or if you have a bad case of the shiats that day -- I expect you to follow procedures and policies at all times. If you don't, you are a.) endangering yourself, b.) not serving me as an enforcer, and c.) endangering others.

If you're having a bad day, don't clock in.
 
2014-03-16 05:20:06 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Curious: 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?

Do you think Mary would be more or less likely to honestly answer that question knowing that she was being recorded on video? Do you think rape victims would be less likely to report the crime if they know they'll have to describe it while being videotaped? What if the victim requests that the interview not be taped but the officer's policy says they can't turn the recorder off? Those are issues that need to be addressed.

With sensitive crimes, such as rape, cops sometimes work very hard to earn the trust of the victim so they can get accurate and honest answers to their questions. If a victim knows they are being taped, that becomes just one more obstacle to overcome. "Don't worry Mary, the video won't show up on You Tube," even as the cop knows it may eventually be released to a defense attorney and he and his agency will no longer have control over it.


Plus, it's so much easier to get a conviction and get another bad guy off the street when the cop is free to retroactively add details to his report based on what the prosecutor tells him he needs. Mary didn't say the guy had a beard, but we arrested a guy with a beard? Add a line in the report about how she said his beard was scratching her. After all, we want to get this guy, don't we?

/if the video shows up on YouTube after the defense attorney has hold of it, despite being under seal, then the defense attorney is going to be sanctioned and possibly lose his or her license. I don't know of many attorneys who would willing sacrifice their career, permanently, just for lolz. Do you?
 
2014-03-16 05:20:13 PM  

yellowjester: All the cops are criminals and the sinners saints. Didn't click Fox news link.


Every time you do it's like softly putting a finger up Rupert Murdoch's ass. He likes it.
 
2014-03-16 05:22:57 PM  
Constant surveillance is a biatch, eh little piggies?

If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.
 
2014-03-16 05:24:13 PM  

SkeletorUpInHere: The officer then shot the suspect in the back effectively eliminating the threat.

The point of the story is that the news got a hold of one side of the story and made this cops life a living hell. In no other line of work is a person scrutinized as hard as a police officer for being in the right.


... in no other line of work does a person kill someone while being "in the right". I would think that an accountant would be pretty intensely scrutinized if he killed a client.
 
2014-03-16 05:27:21 PM  
You mean cops are still employees like everyone else!? And employees always talk shiat about their superiors when they think they're not listening!? Inconceivable!
 
2014-03-16 05:28:46 PM  
The footage might be a bit unsteady:

i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-16 05:30:10 PM  

weltallica: kling_klang_bed: [img.fark.net image 193x261]

Definitely DOES NOT APPROVE!!!!


Josh?


Nah, it's Dan Stark and Jack Bailey from 'Good Guys'. One other cop who definitely does not approve:

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-16 05:30:19 PM  

Theaetetus: ... in no other line of work does a person kill someone while being "in the right".


*raises hand*
Not so fast there, skippy.
 
2014-03-16 05:30:36 PM  

SkeletorUpInHere: The point of the story is that the news got a hold of one side of the story and made this cops life a living hell. In no other line of work is a person scrutinized as hard as a police officer for being in the right./end rant


In no other line of work is an individual empowered to ruin or end someone's life, and has the ability to get away with it. Cops need to be scrutinized, the more the better.

Then maybe I will stop being afraid of cops when I have done nothing wrong or illegal.
 
2014-03-16 05:33:04 PM  
There are plenty of jobs that expect 100% perfection.

Why should cops, who are authorized to remove someone's freedom be under any less scrutiny than any nurse, doctor, etc?

Esp considering the fact that cops are authorized to shoot and kill under certain circumstances, you're goddam right I (and everyone else should too) demand perfection 100% of the time.
 
2014-03-16 05:33:20 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.


Well, there's the Florida case where a state trooper pulled over a local cop for going over 100 mph because he was late to his off duty job. All of his friends then started pulling her personal information from the drivers license database and are now crying foul because she's suing them over it.

There's the outcry over the execution of Oscar Grant up in San Francisco. Somehow I doubt that I'll only get 2 years in jail if I put someone on the ground, get on top of them, and then shoot them at point blank.

There's the beating death of Kelly Thomas in Orange County.

There's the two different cases of police officers opening up on trucks during the hunt for Dorner simply because they were driving trucks.

How many videos are there of police assaulting civilians for simply taping them? How many of those videos go "missing" (read destruction of evidence)?

...but yea, keep up the fantasy that the police want to be held accountable for their actions.
 
2014-03-16 05:34:19 PM  

ReluctantPaladin: 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?


Why do you need to explain it? Are they refusing to return your property unless you agree to be a witness? Wouldn't you like to have that extortion attempt recorded?

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?

You hang out with bad people, but you're not such a bad guy yourself. The cops arrest you and the other guys, claiming they got a tip from a confidential informant. Would you trust that the informant even exists?

As noted earlier, evidence is frequently used in trials under seal. In some cases, the defendant may not see that evidence, just their lawyer. And if the lawyer breathes a word of it outside of the judge's chambers, they face sanctions, fines, and possibly the end of their career. Do you know a lawyer who would post a video on Youtube and sacrifice their career for the lulz?

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?

The officer is writing down everything you say, anyway.

More importantly, we know that many sexual assault victims are discouraged by the cops from pressing charges - they get asked questions about whether they really were assaulted or whether they were leading the guy on, and do they really want to ruin some guy's life over just a bit of slap and tickle. They get told by the cops how rough trial will be for them, and wouldn't it maybe be best to just get on with their lives.
If you were  really concerned about victims, rather than just playing concern troll, you'd want those interviews to be recorded.
 
2014-03-16 05:34:52 PM  

egomann: SkeletorUpInHere: The point of the story is that the news got a hold of one side of the story and made this cops life a living hell. In no other line of work is a person scrutinized as hard as a police officer for being in the right./end rant

In no other line of work is an individual empowered to ruin or end someone's life, and has the ability to get away with it. Cops need to be scrutinized, the more the better.

Then maybe I will stop being afraid of cops when I have done nothing wrong or illegal.


This.

If cops dont like the scrutiny, they obviously have something to hide.

Dont like it? Quit being a cop. There are too many anyhow.
 
2014-03-16 05:36:40 PM  

JPINFV: How many videos are there of police assaulting civilians for simply taping them? How many of those videos go "missing" (read destruction of evidence)?


It's even more ball-busting when they erase the video, give a false account, and then learn there are apps that automatically upload the video to the web in real-time, so they didn't really erase the video.

That's been happening a lot lately.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report