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  
•       •       •

12671 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Mar 2014 at 3:10 PM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



161 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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?
 
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.
 
2014-03-16 05:37:50 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 th ...


For argument's sake, lets say the shiney object is a gun.  The police have video evidence that a suspect pulled a gun on a cop, put then gun back into his pocket, started walking away, and then was shot in the back by cops.  You, a cop, think that this video justifies the shooting.

Do I live in crazy town, or isn't it pretty farked up to shoot someone in the back when they don't have a weapon in their hand?  If he was reaching for the gun or aiming the gun I could understand, but not once he put the gun away.  This is even more farked up if we drop the assumption that it was a gun.  In your story you don't say it is a gun, knife, or even a weapon of any sort, just a shiny object.  The fact that the identity of the "shiny object" was omitted from your story tells me that the guy was likely shot in the back for pointing his Zippo lighter or iphone at a cop.

/hint, this is why  civies don't trust cops
 
2014-03-16 05:41:11 PM

RogermcAllen: 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 th ...

For argument's sake, lets say the shiney object is a gun.  The police have video evidence that a suspect pulled a gun on a cop, put then gun back into his pocket, started walking away, and then was shot in the back by cops.  You, a cop, think that this video justifies the shooting.

Do I live in crazy town, or isn't it pretty farked up to shoot someone in the back when they don't have a weapon in their hand?  If he was reaching for the gun or aiming the gun I could understand, but not once he put the gun away.  This is even more farked up if we drop the assumption that it was a gun.  In your story you don't say it is a gun, knife, or even a weapon of any sort, just a shiny object.  The fact that the identity of the "shiny object" was omitted from your story tells me that the guy was likely shot in the back for pointing his Zippo lighter or iphone at a cop.

/hint, this is why  civies don't trust cops


Annnnnd this is why you would be dead in the streets.

If I pull a gun on you and point it to your face, do you think that I hae the means to kill you, or harm someone else?
 
2014-03-16 05:44:20 PM
Approves
i1280.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-16 05:46:37 PM

SkeletorUpInHere: RogermcAllen: 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 threa ...


I thought once the immediate threat is gone, there's no need to shoot?
 
2014-03-16 05:48:59 PM
OK more effort.
i1280.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-16 05:49:54 PM

johne3819: SkeletorUpInHere: RogermcAllen: 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 threa ...

I thought once the immediate threat is gone, there's no need to shoot?


He had a gun, and pointed it at me. He's still within 10 feet of me. I'd say that's enough reason.

But the point I was making earlier is that cops deal in areas of gray, not black and white. While you may look at it one way, I can look at it another.
 
2014-03-16 05:52:30 PM

Whatchoo Talkinbout: OK more effort.
[i1280.photobucket.com image 480x270]


maybe more analogous:

I've been recording all day with a low battery.  My camera may or may not be recording for the next minute.  Do you feel lucky punk?

I know what you're thinking. "Did he turn off his lapel pin or not?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?
 
2014-03-16 05:53:52 PM

SkeletorUpInHere: Annnnnd this is why you would be dead in the streets.


I'm betting you read Grossman's works like gospel.

He's part of the problem. His sheepdog mentality does harm to the idea of comunity policing

You aren't being hunted actively, your trainers just don't want you complacent.
 
2014-03-16 05:54:32 PM

SkeletorUpInHere: johne3819: SkeletorUpInHere: RogermcAllen: 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 effe ...



And hence the need for it to be recorded, so it can be reviewed and determined if in fact the LEO acted appropriately
 
2014-03-16 05:56:06 PM

SkeletorUpInHere: johne3819: SkeletorUpInHere: RogermcAllen: 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 threa ...

I thought once the immediate threat is gone, there's no need to shoot?

He had a gun, and pointed it at me. He's still within 10 feet of me. I'd say that's enough reason.

But the point I was making earlier is that cops deal in areas of gray, not black and white. While you may look at it one way, I can look at it another.


So if someone pointed a gun at me then turned around to walk away and put the gun away, you're telling me that anyone who capped said guy would not be arrested...thsts what you are saying?

If so...ill be first to say: you are full of shiat.

Anyone else but a cop wpuld be in jail...and THAT fact is at the very root of the problem: non-cop does same thing a cop does, the officer walks..the other person goes to prison.

The police shoukd be held to the exact same standards as anyone else, and should have non-cop oversight panels.
 
2014-03-16 05:56:38 PM

SkeletorUpInHere: RogermcAllen: 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 threa ...


If the man actually was a threat, you would be dead in the streets since he had time to pull the "shiny object", aim the "shiny object", put the "shiny object" away, and turn around before your buddy shot him.
 
2014-03-16 05:57:45 PM

RogermcAllen: SkeletorUpInHere: RogermcAllen: 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 threa ...

If the man actually was a threat, you would be dead in the streets since he had time to pull the "shiny object", aim the "shiny object", put the "shiny object" away, and turn around before your buddy shot him.


Exactly what i thougjt when i read it.
 
2014-03-16 06:00:30 PM

SkeletorUpInHere: RogermcAllen: 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 th ...

For argument's sake, lets say the shiney object is a gun.  The police have video evidence that a suspect pulled a gun on a cop, put then gun back into his pocket, started walking away, and then was shot in the back by cops.  You, a cop, think that this video justifies the shooting.

Do I live in crazy town, or isn't it pretty farked up to shoot someone in the back when they don't have a weapon in their hand?  If he was reaching for the gun or aiming the gun I could understand, but not once he put the gun away.  This is even more farked up if we drop the assumption that it was a gun.  In your story you don't say it is a gun, knife, or even a weapon of any sort, just a shiny object.  The fact that the identity of the "shiny object" was omitted from your story tells me that the guy was likely shot in the back for pointing his Zippo lighter or iphone at a cop.

/hint, this is why  civies don't trust cops

Annnnnd this is why you would be dead in the streets.

If I pull a gun on you and point it to your face, do you think that I hae the means to kill you, or harm someone else?


Yeah..because soneone intending to kill you pulls a "shiny object" then turns around and walks away while putting said "shiny object" away?

THEN your cop friend caps him? After he turned and walked away...after he put the "threat" away?

Sounds like manslaughter to me.
 
2014-03-16 06:02:08 PM

SkeletorUpInHere: He had a gun, and pointed it at me. He's still within 10 feet of me. I'd say that's enough reason.


Surely you're trolling. 

Advocating lethal force on someone who is not putting your life in jeopardy still 

If he was going to shoot he wouldn't have lowered his weapon and turned his back.
 
2014-03-16 06:03:17 PM

SkeletorUpInHere: But the point I was making earlier is that cops deal in areas of gray, not black and white. While you may look at it one way, I can look at it another.


No, they don't.

In police procedures, there is plenty of room for leaving decisions to the officers under given conditions, but those policies and procedures define black-and-white parameters in black and white.

You do not have a "gray area" on constitutional rights. You don't have a gray area that allows you to falsify evidence, or to assault people just because you want to.

You can make a decision on whether to give someone a ticket or not. You can use your judgment to a point to decide that you're in danger and need to use a weapon of some kind, or to use experience and patience to do your job without causing injuries. You can decide whether it's more risk to chase or not (although there are several forces that have strict policies on that, too).

But you can't violate public policies. If you violate those policies, you're not doing your job. Those policies and procedures are based on laws and practices which are written down in black and white. You don't have any leeway with those. You don't get to beat someone who isn't threatening you just because you have a little too much adrenaline in your system, or he called you a dirty name.
 
2014-03-16 06:04:06 PM

thehobbes: SkeletorUpInHere: He had a gun, and pointed it at me. He's still within 10 feet of me. I'd say that's enough reason.

Surely you're trolling. 

Advocating lethal force on someone who is not putting your life in jeopardy still 

If he was going to shoot he wouldn't have lowered his weapon and turned his back.


The moment the gun is put away, lethal force is no longer justified.

THAT is the actual law.

Anything else is semantics and made up details to cover another cop's arse.

Cops too much follow the law.
 
2014-03-16 06:09:53 PM
New job: Professional camera footage deleter.
 
2014-03-16 06:12:44 PM

The more you eat the more you fart: thehobbes: SkeletorUpInHere: He had a gun, and pointed it at me. He's still within 10 feet of me. I'd say that's enough reason.

Surely you're trolling. 

Advocating lethal force on someone who is not putting your life in jeopardy still 

If he was going to shoot he wouldn't have lowered his weapon and turned his back.

The moment the gun is put away, lethal force is no longer justified.

THAT is the actual law.

Anything else is semantics and made up details to cover another cop's arse.

Cops too much follow the law.


At this point, I doubt he's actually a LEO, more likely trolling
 
2014-03-16 06:30:31 PM
Why Cameras would be a good thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvIjew0N-uA
 
2014-03-16 06:34:52 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?


Most don't.

Which is why most oppose the use of cameras.
 
2014-03-16 06:50:25 PM
I LOVED my body mic and car dashcam when I was a cop. As I always saw it, those things protected me more than anything else. Nobody could ever falsely accuse me of anything, and if I was ever attacked there would be a record to aid in conviction. 

There are legit concerns though. Having legit concerns about new things doesn't mean they are too scary to implement; it just means that they are not perfect. Like guns and fast cars and blood-soaked car wrecks and all the other dangerous stuff cops surround themselves with. 

Here is a legitimate issue: people need to be comfortable giving police reports without fear of their recorded image and comments becoming a public record. Easy as hell solutions abound, but they must be addressed rather than simply scaring everyone away from the beneficial tech altogether.
 
2014-03-16 07:03:04 PM

johne3819: Whatchoo Talkinbout: OK more effort.
[i1280.photobucket.com image 480x270]

maybe more analogous:

I've been recording all day with a low battery.  My camera may or may not be recording for the next minute.  Do you feel lucky punk?

I know what you're thinking. "Did he turn off his lapel pin or not?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?


Yer not raaat err ya bub? Actually we respect that here.
 
2014-03-16 07:17:22 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 enough people with mohawks are spraying silly string at people, and I see someone with a mohawk reach into their pocket, I'm just gonna assume it's silly string. Because at some point, you have to either use statistics to make an educated guess, or end up hurt\dead\arrested on false pretenses\having your crap stolen\otherwise victimized.
 
2014-03-16 07:18:02 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.


If you can't do your job without breaking the laws you are sworn to uphold or without violating someone's rights then you need to choose another line of work.
 
2014-03-16 07:22:53 PM

johne3819: The more you eat the more you fart: thehobbes: SkeletorUpInHere: He had a gun, and pointed it at me. He's still within 10 feet of me. I'd say that's enough reason.

Surely you're trolling. 

Advocating lethal force on someone who is not putting your life in jeopardy still 

If he was going to shoot he wouldn't have lowered his weapon and turned his back.

The moment the gun is put away, lethal force is no longer justified.

THAT is the actual law.

Anything else is semantics and made up details to cover another cop's arse.

Cops too much follow the law.

At this point, I doubt he's actually a LEO, more likely trolling


Well, good point.
 
2014-03-16 07:23:15 PM

DaveTheGreat: Here is a legitimate issue: people need to be comfortable giving police reports without fear of their recorded image and comments becoming a public record.


Aren't police reports, including quotes or paraphrasing of witness statements, already public records?
 
2014-03-16 07:24:36 PM
Rig them so that the camera comes on whenever the Taser or pistol is drawn.  That should show what the perp is doing immediately before being killed.

Kidding!  Have them on all the time, but provide for a CIVILIAN review board, picked just like a jury, to determine if a video is to be released to the public.
 
2014-03-16 07:25:23 PM

Beowoolfie: Oldiron_79: grinding_journalist:

Privacy is a technologically-obsolete concept.


If troll, 7/10.  Otherwise, view is overstated.

no way to prevent having a "cameras everywhere" society, short of collapsing our whole civilization

Moar hyperbole, why I am reading this?

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.

Little creepy.

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.


Creepier still.

I've surrendered to the inevitible

Next will caught say inevitable global thermonuclear disaster blots out humanity in our lifetimes?
 
2014-03-16 07:31:04 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?


Simple solution- don't cheat on your wife with hookers to begin with.

See- cameras are already reducing crime and keeping the honest people honest!

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 peoiple but you're not such a bad guy yourself". Um, what? Good people don't hang out with bad people.
As for giving the 'local beat cop' some info- you can pass info on to someone without standing directly in front of their camera, clearly identifying yourself, and saying 'I have some snitch info for you, officer!'

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?

Yes. If there's any question of what I said, or how I was acting, it's there to back me up.
 
2014-03-16 07:45:47 PM

SkeletorUpInHere: RogermcAllen: 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 threa ...


So you're saying that the average street cop needs exponentially looser rules of engagement than a soldier on the battlefield?
Because there is no way that would be a good contact with a civilian in Afghanistan and you know it.
I guess the streets of Anytown, USA as far more dangerous than a war zone, huh?
 
2014-03-16 07:52:22 PM

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


Maybe not.  However I don't get to decide policy at my job.  If I had to wear one I either would do it, or I'd find another job.

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

Yes.  If it was so bad that I had to go against my own proscription against involving the cops, yeah, I'd want it recorded, because it means somebody must have just died.
 
2014-03-16 07:56:34 PM

Whatchoo Talkinbout: johne3819: Whatchoo Talkinbout: OK more effort.
[i1280.photobucket.com image 480x270]

maybe more analogous:

I've been recording all day with a low battery.  My camera may or may not be recording for the next minute.  Do you feel lucky punk?

I know what you're thinking. "Did he turn off his lapel pin or not?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

Yer not raaat err ya bub? Actually we respect that here.



Rarely right ever :)
 
2014-03-16 08:21:48 PM

SkeletorUpInHere: johne3819: SkeletorUpInHere: RogermcAllen: 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 effe ...


I'd like to know which precinct/district/municipality you work for, so I can avoid ever stepping foot there. You're a bad cop (if you're a cop at all) and I hope you get removed from the job. This attitude is exactly the reason the general public has lost trust/respect for LEO's. It is righteously deserved, and unlikely to return in the near term.
 
2014-03-16 08:45:25 PM
"LEO selfies" is now a thing.
 
2014-03-16 09:01:02 PM

Theaetetus: DaveTheGreat: Here is a legitimate issue: people need to be comfortable giving police reports without fear of their recorded image and comments becoming a public record.

Aren't police reports, including quotes or paraphrasing of witness statements, already public records?


Not entirely. The basic rule of thumb is, yes, if it becomes evidence in a prosecution. No if it becomes background stuff or is a confidential informant or generally goes nowhere. In my experience, about 70% of people talking to cops fall into this category. Plus there is the whole hornet's nest of statements by minors, statements by sexual assault victims, statements against organized criminal groups (contrary to the TV/movies, witness protection programs essentially are nonexistent except in amazingly rare cases). 

Plus, some times things are timely or part of an ongoing investigation. That stuff needs to not be public record until after an appropriate time. 

ALL these things are minor and can be addressed through policy, leaving the widespread use of body recorders on the table.
 
2014-03-16 09:09:39 PM

PsiChick: If enough people with mohawks are spraying silly string at people, and I see someone with a mohawk reach into their pocket, I'm just gonna assume it's silly string. Because at some point, you have to either use statistics to make an educated guess, or end up hurt\dead\arrested on false pretenses\having your crap stolen\otherwise victimized.


Except you're not doing that. You're using cherry picked stories from the media that show a unrealistic and disproportionate amount of corrupt cops because that's what draws viewers. There are roughly 1.1 million police in the US. You're really me that with your keen mind for statistics, you have seen real data showing most of them are corrupt? No the occasional Youtube video or sensational news report don't count.

If you want to just hate cops, that's fine. But don't start claiming it's because you made a reasoned judgement based on statistic unless you're willing to show those statistics.
 
2014-03-16 09:14:07 PM

taurusowner: PsiChick: If enough people with mohawks are spraying silly string at people, and I see someone with a mohawk reach into their pocket, I'm just gonna assume it's silly string. Because at some point, you have to either use statistics to make an educated guess, or end up hurt\dead\arrested on false pretenses\having your crap stolen\otherwise victimized.

Except you're not doing that. You're using cherry picked stories from the media that show a unrealistic and disproportionate amount of corrupt cops because that's what draws viewers. There are roughly 1.1 million police in the US. You're really me that with your keen mind for statistics, you have seen real data showing most of them are corrupt? No the occasional Youtube video or sensational news report don't count.

If you want to just hate cops, that's fine. But don't start claiming it's because you made a reasoned judgement based on statistic unless you're willing to show those statistics.


Since it's one of the least reported things cops do...

Tell you what, though--you go ahead and tot up the number of examples. There's not that many, right? Shouldn't be, oh, easily in the millions, right? After all, there's only so many police officers...
 
2014-03-16 09:51:02 PM

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


I will never feel comfortable talking to a cop.
Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law.
 
2014-03-16 09:54:23 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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Code_of_Silence
 
2014-03-16 09:55:54 PM
As a law enforcement officer, you do not have a right to privacy in the execution of your duties. That is all.
 
2014-03-16 10:01:10 PM

Badgers: The footage might be a bit unsteady:

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]


That is some very practical attire for chasing down criminals.
 
2014-03-16 10:09:35 PM

taurusowner: PsiChick: If enough people with mohawks are spraying silly string at people, and I see someone with a mohawk reach into their pocket, I'm just gonna assume it's silly string. Because at some point, you have to either use statistics to make an educated guess, or end up hurt\dead\arrested on false pretenses\having your crap stolen\otherwise victimized.

Except you're not doing that. You're using cherry picked stories from the media that show a unrealistic and disproportionate amount of corrupt cops because that's what draws viewers. There are roughly 1.1 million police in the US. You're really me that with your keen mind for statistics, you have seen real data showing most of them are corrupt? No the occasional Youtube video or sensational news report don't count.

If you want to just hate cops, that's fine. But don't start claiming it's because you made a reasoned judgement based on statistic unless you're willing to show those statistics.


I have had crooked state troopers take bribes from a trucking company whose drunken, passed out in his rig driver almost killed me at 16. Almost 40 years later I'm getting a haircut and a local cop talking to my barber proceeds to tell how he will fabricate reasons to pull over people that he thinks look like  the types to have drugs on them. I have had about 2 or 3 other incidents with disreputable cops.

Not all cops are dishonest, but there are enough to make the whole lot of them look bad. How about PD's start cleaning house and getting rid of the bad apples causing these trust issues?
 
2014-03-16 10:20:59 PM

happydude45: taurusowner: PsiChick: If enough people with mohawks are spraying silly string at people, and I see someone with a mohawk reach into their pocket, I'm just gonna assume it's silly string. Because at some point, you have to either use statistics to make an educated guess, or end up hurt\dead\arrested on false pretenses\having your crap stolen\otherwise victimized.

Except you're not doing that. You're using cherry picked stories from the media that show a unrealistic and disproportionate amount of corrupt cops because that's what draws viewers. There are roughly 1.1 million police in the US. You're really me that with your keen mind for statistics, you have seen real data showing most of them are corrupt? No the occasional Youtube video or sensational news report don't count.

If you want to just hate cops, that's fine. But don't start claiming it's because you made a reasoned judgement based on statistic unless you're willing to show those statistics.

I have had crooked state troopers take bribes from a trucking company whose drunken, passed out in his rig driver almost killed me at 16. Almost 40 years later I'm getting a haircut and a local cop talking to my barber proceeds to tell how he will fabricate reasons to pull over people that he thinks look like  the types to have drugs on them. I have had about 2 or 3 other incidents with disreputable cops.

Not all cops are dishonest, but there are enough to make the whole lot of them look bad. How about PD's start cleaning house and getting rid of the bad apples causing these trust issues?


And it's not simply the numbers. It's the amount of damage they can do.

Supertankers rarely wreck and spill oil all over the place. We still keep contingency plans in place because of the amount of damage a single bad one can do. One bad cop can ruin your entire future and take away everything you have.
 
2014-03-16 11:26:45 PM

DaveTheGreat: Theaetetus: DaveTheGreat: Here is a legitimate issue: people need to be comfortable giving police reports without fear of their recorded image and comments becoming a public record.

Aren't police reports, including quotes or paraphrasing of witness statements, already public records?

Not entirely. The basic rule of thumb is, yes, if it becomes evidence in a prosecution.  No if it becomes background stuff or is a confidential informant or generally goes nowhere. In my experience, about 70% of people talking to cops fall into this category.

 ]

Well, I don't think people are demanding that police reports about kitties stuck in trees or video recordings of Officers buying lunch be made public, because, as noted in the popular meme:
smalltownrevelations.files.wordpress.com
It's only when, y'know, it becomes evidence in a prosecution that it might be somewhat important.

Plus, some times things are timely or part of an ongoing investigation. That stuff needs to not be public record until after an appropriate time.

See above: if no one has been charged with a crime, then you can take your records and your video recording and shove them up your ass for all anyone gives a damn. It's when someone  has been charged that it must be made available, at least to their attorney under seal, should that be what the judge decides.

ALL these things are minor and can be addressed through policy, leaving the widespread use of body recorders on the table.

Frankly, I can't see any legitimate reason why body recorders shouldn't be in widespread use. So far, the only defenses that have been raised are "what if the defense attorney decides to suicide bomb his own career and send them to the media?!" and "but people might feel uncomfortable that the guy who is writing down every word they say may also be actually recording every word they say, because they might have something in their teeth and could be embarrassed or something."
 
2014-03-16 11:28:37 PM

ReluctantPaladin: 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 ...


1) .... I have no problem with your examples
2) you're farked ... you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy
3) ok 3 is a MUCH bigger problem and policy will be written to deal with this

On the other hand, back to case 3, your report being recorded isnt the same thing as that being public record.  Time to put all of the video under control of the courts, not the police. Esp since the police have a tendency to lose the video. LOL

sigh

we live in a brave new world
 
2014-03-16 11:48:15 PM

happydude45: Not all cops are dishonest, but there are enough to make the whole lot of them look bad. How about PD's start cleaning house and getting rid of the bad apples causing these trust issues?


please
by definition all cops are bad
they have NOT cleaned house and resist all attempts at house cleaning.
until the LESS BAD cops start arresting the REALLY BAD cops, dont go trying to convince me of innocence.

There was a cop shooting recently, texas maybe?
Where the cop shot into a trapped care, reloaded and shot some more.
There was another cop on the scene who did nothing buy HIDE.
Why didnt he STOP the other cop from committing murder?
Because he is a bad cop.
 
2014-03-16 11:51:45 PM

Theaetetus: DaveTheGreat: Theaetetus: DaveTheGreat: Here is a legitimate issue: people need to be comfortable giving police reports without fear of their recorded image and comments becoming a public record.

Aren't police reports, including quotes or paraphrasing of witness statements, already public records?

Not entirely. The basic rule of thumb is, yes, if it becomes evidence in a prosecution.  No if it becomes background stuff or is a confidential informant or generally goes nowhere. In my experience, about 70% of people talking to cops fall into this category. ]

Well, I don't think people are demanding that police reports about kitties stuck in trees or video recordings of Officers buying lunch be made public, because, as noted in the popular meme:
[smalltownrevelations.files.wordpress.com image 300x179]
It's only when, y'know, it becomes evidence in a prosecution that it might be somewhat important.

Plus, some times things are timely or part of an ongoing investigation. That stuff needs to not be public record until after an appropriate time.

See above: if no one has been charged with a crime, then you can take your records and your video recording and shove them up your ass for all anyone gives a damn. It's when someone  has been charged that it must be made available, at least to their attorney under seal, should that be what the judge decides.

ALL these things are minor and can be addressed through policy, leaving the widespread use of body recorders on the table.

Frankly, I can't see any legitimate reason why body recorders shouldn't be in widespread use. So far, the only defenses that have been raised are "what if the defense attorney decides to suicide bomb his own career and send them to the media?!" and "but people might feel uncomfortable that the guy who is writing down every word they say may also be actually recording every word they say, because they might have something in their teeth and could be embarrassed or something."



Ehhh ... the thing is, people are weird. I never got in a gang shootout or foiled a bank robbery or took down a mafia don, but I had uncountable instances of neighbors being dicks to each other and terrified old racists letting me know their suspicions about whoever just stumbled onto their radar. You would THINK that nobody would care about pulling these recordings to browse them for embarrassing details about their neighbors (or banks trolling for details before a foreclosure), but you would be wrong. 

Personally, I have had the public check up on me when I was at lunch, and one rather memorable occasion where I went to a convenience store to buy a drink and a snack. My body mic immediately exonerated me from wrongdoing or general "that guy was rude!" complaints. I was off camera each time, but not out of mic range. Awesome things (and this was a long time ago. The newer tech is even more awesome). 

My long-winded point is: people DO go through the minutiae of police records. For some, it's a hobby. For others, it's a vocation. Sometimes it's spite or greed or simply boredom. But yes, the recordings and records get poured through, even if they are things nobody cared about. 

Kitties stuck in trees, though, is a firefighter call. Cops just get the barking dogs :) 

This same sort of issue came up a lot in an old-timey way with police blotters and local newspapers. The solutions they came up with are too out-of-date to use now, but the fact that they did come up with solutions leads me to think we can come up with new ones. 

These recordings still need to happen, and the one thing I know for sure is that the police should NOT be the people who decide what gets released (that would just kick the problem down the road a bit). I like the idea of a two-tiered system, where everything is released unless the police object, in which case the citizen panel meets to decide if the police get overruled, or if they agree, or if they agree with some sort of time delay.
 
2014-03-17 12:47:45 AM
I'm sure this has been re-hashed over and over, but how the hell does a recording device "influence" anything but the truth?
 
2014-03-17 01:01:52 AM

Sharksfan: I'm sure this has been re-hashed over and over, but how the hell does a recording device "influence" anything but the truth?


observation bias
google it
 
2014-03-17 02:05:15 AM

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.


***Except of course that the many are protecting, defending and covering up for those "few bad cops" as you call them.
As far as I am concerned all cops - especially those in urban areas - are thugs and bullies who are trained in one thing and one thing only - hurting people as much as they possibly can. And then lie about it with the standard, "I felt in fear for my life because he/she was reaching for their waistband."
 
2014-03-17 02:34:03 AM
What the entire police force needs is an enema. Cops are dirty. Time to clean that shiat up.

/doesn't trust the trigger happy sons 'o biatches
 
2014-03-17 03:57:42 AM

PsiChick: taurusowner: PsiChick: If enough people with mohawks are spraying silly string at people, and I see someone with a mohawk reach into their pocket, I'm just gonna assume it's silly string. Because at some point, you have to either use statistics to make an educated guess, or end up hurt\dead\arrested on false pretenses\having your crap stolen\otherwise victimized.

Except you're not doing that. You're using cherry picked stories from the media that show a unrealistic and disproportionate amount of corrupt cops because that's what draws viewers. There are roughly 1.1 million police in the US. You're really me that with your keen mind for statistics, you have seen real data showing most of them are corrupt? No the occasional Youtube video or sensational news report don't count.

If you want to just hate cops, that's fine. But don't start claiming it's because you made a reasoned judgement based on statistic unless you're willing to show those statistics.

Since it's one of the least reported things cops do...

Tell you what, though--you go ahead and tot up the number of examples. There's not that many, right? Shouldn't be, oh, easily in the millions, right? After all, there's only so many police officers...


You cite a wikipedia page? You're joking right?
 
2014-03-17 10:47:54 AM
Put them on the 10% officers that have the most complaints against them. Evaluate complaint counts monthly/quarterly. Adjust who wears them accordingly.

Regarding the officer being able to turn off the video in places where a reasonable expectation of photo/video privacy can be expected, allow them to turn it off, but while it is off, keep audio capture running. Do not allow audio to be turned off.
 
2014-03-17 11:13:26 AM

ottebx: Regarding the officer being able to turn off the video in places where a reasonable expectation of photo/video privacy can be expected, allow them to turn it off, but while it is off, keep audio capture running. Do not allow audio to be turned off.


Uh, no. We've already seen recordings of cops beating people who are clearly not resisting, while shouting "stop going for my gun!" or "stop resisting". There's a video linked in this thread showing a cop tackling a guy after shouting "don't farking touch me! Don't farking touch me!" despite the guy not touching him at all, the cop knowing that the guy's camera wasn't pointed him but would pick up audio (and not realizing that there was another person filming).

Since we know that cops will lie in audio recordings, we cannot give them the discretion to turn off video.
 
2014-03-17 11:54:47 AM
Simple acid test,,,
A "good" cop would happily wear, endorse and embrace the protection that video provides.
"Bad" cop, well, we all know,,,
 
2014-03-17 03:44:49 PM

LeGnome: As a law enforcement officer, you do not have a right to privacy in the execution of your duties. That is all.


Is a private conversation with a co-worker or supervisor considered "in the execution of your duties?" Do the people you're talking to have an expectation of privacy that should be respected? How about if you're in a restaurant and a couple cops sit down in the next booth to have lunch and you know they're recording everything within earshot, including your conversation? Would you be comfortable with that?

As the article states, this issue isn't as simple as it might seem. Recording every contact the police have creates lots of issues and concerns both from the perspective of the police and from the public. It creates privacy concerns as well as legal concerns.
 
2014-03-17 04:13:41 PM

CruiserTwelve: LeGnome: As a law enforcement officer, you do not have a right to privacy in the execution of your duties. That is all.

Is a private conversation with a co-worker or supervisor considered "in the execution of your duties?" Do the people you're talking to have an expectation of privacy that should be respected? How about if you're in a restaurant and a couple cops sit down in the next booth to have lunch and you know they're recording everything within earshot, including your conversation? Would you be comfortable with that?

As the article states, this issue isn't as simple as it might seem. Recording every contact the police have creates lots of issues and concerns both from the perspective of the police and from the public. It creates privacy concerns as well as legal concerns.


When you're on the job, you're on the job. When you're in public, you're in public.
 
2014-03-17 04:21:00 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: When you're on the job, you're on the job. When you're in public, you're in public.


So you don't mind if a government employee tapes your private conversations, even incidentally, if they occur in public?
 
2014-03-17 04:53:17 PM

CruiserTwelve: demaL-demaL-yeH: When you're on the job, you're on the job. When you're in public, you're in public.

So you don't mind if a government employee tapes your private conversations, even incidentally, if they occur in public?


Private conversations are not held in public.
 
2014-03-17 06:22:36 PM

CruiserTwelve: LeGnome: As a law enforcement officer, you do not have a right to privacy in the execution of your duties. That is all.

Is a private conversation with a co-worker or supervisor considered "in the execution of your duties?"


As suggested above, let the cop turn the camera off, and, should anything that occurs during that time period be used in a prosecution, the jury should be instructed to infer that something either incriminating was done by the officer or something exculpatory occurred by a defendant.

In other words, if you're just shooting the shiat with your co-worker and you want to turn the camera off, feel free... but if you then suddenly decide to arrest someone for  looking at you funny "obstructing an officer and resisting arrest", then you better turn that camera back on first, or the jury gets to assume that you're just harassing an innocent person.
That protects you taking a leak, changing at the station, talking to your supervisor, etc., since you're not going to be arresting anyone during those time periods, right?

Do the people you're talking to have an expectation of privacy that should be respected?

If they're talking to a cop, no - the cop is writing down every word they say, right?

How about if you're in a restaurant and a couple cops sit down in the next booth to have lunch and you know they're recording everything within earshot, including your conversation? Would you be comfortable with that?

As noted above, that's not private. Say you're in the restaurant booth planning how to rob a jewelry store and a cop sits down in the next booth to have lunch - do they need to run out and get a warrant to eavesdrop? Hell, no. If the cop is sitting right there, listening and taking notes, how is it any different if he's also got a recorder going?
 
2014-03-18 03:35:12 AM

Theaetetus: As suggested above, let the cop turn the camera off, and, should anything that occurs during that time period be used in a prosecution, the jury should be instructed to infer that something either incriminating was done by the officer or something exculpatory occurred by a defendant.


That's not realistic. In the real world things happen unexpectedly. In addition, that rule is based on a mistrust of the police which is also unrealistic and undeserved.

You obviously don't trust the police. Fortunately you're in the minority. You've chosen to base your opinion on Fark threads and You Tube videos. It's like basing an opinion of "liberals" on what you hear from Rush Limbaugh.

I wish you, and many others, could spend a year as a cop and see what life is really like. It's nothing at all what you think it is.
 
Displayed 161 of 161 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report