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 53
    More: Ironic, high-definition video, Rialto, data storage device, United States Department of Justice, cameras  
•       •       •

12953 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Mar 2014 at 3:10 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-16 03:25:08 PM
7 votes:
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 03:21:14 PM
7 votes:
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 03:35:47 PM
4 votes:

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 03:33:59 PM
3 votes:
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 03:32:51 PM
3 votes:

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 06:50:25 PM
2 votes:
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 05:33:04 PM
2 votes:
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 05:30:36 PM
2 votes:

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 05:24:13 PM
2 votes:

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 05:19:53 PM
2 votes:

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 05:16:45 PM
2 votes:

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 04:02:11 PM
2 votes:

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 03:48:27 PM
2 votes:

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 03:42:20 PM
2 votes:

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 03:31:25 PM
2 votes:
they need this to happen nationwide and the sooner the better.
2014-03-16 03:24:11 PM
2 votes:

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 03:16:45 PM
2 votes:
"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.
2014-03-17 01:01:52 AM
1 votes:

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
2014-03-16 11:51:45 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-03-16 10:20:59 PM
1 votes:

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 09:55:54 PM
1 votes:
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 09:01:02 PM
1 votes:

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 08:21:48 PM
1 votes:

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 07:56:34 PM
1 votes:

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 07:52:22 PM
1 votes:

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 06:03:17 PM
1 votes:

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 06:00:30 PM
1 votes:

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 05:56:38 PM
1 votes:

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 05:56:06 PM
1 votes:

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 05:54:32 PM
1 votes:

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 05:37:50 PM
1 votes:

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 05:33:20 PM
1 votes:

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 05:30:19 PM
1 votes:

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 05:22:57 PM
1 votes:
Constant surveillance is a biatch, eh little piggies?

If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.
2014-03-16 05:20:06 PM
1 votes:

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 04:57:31 PM
1 votes:

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 04:45:52 PM
1 votes:

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 04:40:51 PM
1 votes:

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 04:17:27 PM
1 votes:

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 04:13:10 PM
1 votes:

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 04:12:58 PM
1 votes:

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 04:05:20 PM
1 votes:

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 04:03:07 PM
1 votes:
<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 04:02:28 PM
1 votes:
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 03:58:56 PM
1 votes:
Dont do anything illegal and you will have nothing to worry about, officer.
2014-03-16 03:55:52 PM
1 votes:

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 03:54:05 PM
1 votes:

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 03:45:40 PM
1 votes:

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 03:44:44 PM
1 votes:

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 03:41:04 PM
1 votes:

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 03:37:29 PM
1 votes:

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 03:29:36 PM
1 votes:

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 02:33:26 PM
1 votes:
Officer Glasshole?
 
Displayed 53 of 53 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report