Police brutality

[GLOW]

Originally Posted by Traum

It boggles my mind to this day that body cameras are still not mandatory for on-duty police officers. A lot of the he-says-she-says bullshxt would easily get dispelled by the body camera + audio, although once it gets into a scuffle, the effectiveness of the video foot diminishes.

If the front line cops are resisting its use, then it means they are afraid they'll get caught on camera for some sort of wrong doing.

ya i was reading a few articles and the officer and the student have conflicting accounts regarding the box cutter

[underscore]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

What if you're not the one being arrested, just someone who was at the scene of a crime?

How often is that going to be an issue? You're talking about during the few times body cam footage is seen outside of court, someone who sees that footage may see someone else in the background that does not want to be known as having been there. Compared to all the times people have taken issue with the actions taken by police.

If people are really worried just make a requirement that all background parties must be blurred out before footage is released to the public.

[mikemhg]

Originally Posted by underscore

Which rights exactly? I only ask because a lot of the time people worrying about "their rights" don't even know what they are.

Without a camera it's already a he-said-she-said with the cop so it would be difficult for a camera to make that much worse for someone.

Trust me, I don't buy into that narrative, but Skinny mentioned one point.

Another point is facial recognition, there is some concern that such cams would have the ability to amass a facial database of sorts (which I also think is silly, we have cameras everywhere at this point with such tools).

One point was made that the cameras could be used to protect an offending officer by parsing the recorded clips in a manner in which makes the officer's appear legitimate.

For example, often times officers will turn their cameras off during certain parts, so for example, if the officer turned their camera off during the initial arrest, removing the context of the situation. If the camera is turned on only during an ensuing struggle, it would appear the officer's actions are valid, however leaving out the vital points preceding the interaction.

Thus the recording could be used to protect the officer, meanwhile he might've been kicking the guy in the head, or planting fake evidence, you name it prior to the camera being activated.

Ultimately I think those instances pale in comparison to the positives of forcing the officers to carry cams. I'm just fielding some counter arguments I've heard against the cams.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

Trust me, I don't buy into that narrative, but Skinny mentioned one point.

Another point is facial recognition, there is some concern that such cams would have the ability to amass a facial database of sorts (which I also think is silly, we have cameras everywhere at this point with such tools).

One point was made that the cameras could be used to protect an offending officer by parsing the recorded clips in a manner in which makes the officer's appear legitimate.

For example, often times officers will turn their cameras off during certain parts, so for example, if the officer turned their camera off during the initial arrest, removing the context of the situation. If the camera is turned on only during an ensuing struggle, it would appear the officer's actions are valid, however leaving out the vital points preceding the interaction.

Thus the recording could be used to protect the officer, meanwhile he might've been kicking the guy in the head, or planting fake evidence, you name it prior to the camera being activated.

Ultimately I think those instances pale in comparison to the positives of forcing the officers to carry cams. I'm just fielding some counter arguments I've heard against the cams.

The easy fix for that is don't allow them to be turned off. Legally require any presentation of the video, be it in court or in the media, to have the complete, uncut footage of the interaction. If they were in the cruiser probably start with the in car footage right from when they got the call.

Though maybe for the first bit, let the officers think they can turn them off (have the light go out but it's still recording). It'd make it really easy to find and fire a lot of the shitty cops right off the bat if they think they can avoid being recorded when they break the law.

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by underscore

How often is that going to be an issue? You're talking about during the few times body cam footage is seen outside of court, someone who sees that footage may see someone else in the background that does not want to be known as having been there. Compared to all the times people have taken issue with the actions taken by police.

If people are really worried just make a requirement that all background parties must be blurred out before footage is released to the public.

I'm not sure, I'm just saying that is one issue that I thought of. I'm sure there are solutions to it, such as something like google's face blur technology, etc.

I am 100% in favor of cameras on cops, I was just bringing up some issues people have with it. Remember it's important to not only think of yourself (almost certainly, you or I would probably never have an issue with being spotted on a cop's camera) but as many people as possible that it would affect negatively.

[SolidPenguin]

Almost 100% of frontline officers I've spoken with are all for body cams on calls.
Of course within reason, ie: on during the call itself when on scene, not 100% on all the time and invades everyone's privacy. No one needs or wants their private conversations on down time or them going to the bathroom recorded etc etc.

Body cams in, at least the big centers in Canada, are due to cost. The cost of buying 1000 body cams themselves is not the big issue, although that in itself would cost a pretty penny. Its the IT side, storage, cloud services, etc etc. The amount of data and space/servers needed to store these would be immense for a department like Vancouver, or Surrey.

It comes down to a dollars issue. Officers I know have no issue wearing body cams, a lot of them actually want to.

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by SolidPenguin

Almost 100% of frontline officers I've spoken with are all for body cams on calls.
Of course within reason, ie: on during the call itself when on scene, not 100% on all the time and invades everyone's privacy. No one needs or wants their private conversations on down time or them going to the bathroom recorded etc etc.

Body cams in, at least the big centers in Canada, are due to cost. The cost of buying 1000 body cams themselves is not the big issue, although that in itself would cost a pretty penny. Its the IT side, storage, cloud services, etc etc. The amount of data and space/servers needed to store these would be immense for a department like Vancouver, or Surrey.

It comes down to a dollars issue. Officers I know have no issue wearing body cams, a lot of them actually want to.

FUND THE POLICE!

[Nlkko]

Statistically, body cams and more training have no effect on reducing police brutality. Read this thread which includes a study: https://twitter.com/samswey/status/1...271732224?s=20

What works is to "defund" (people love riling up over this term) them. What it essentially means is transferring many of police's responsibilities to other social service workers who are more qualified and equipped to do them like mental health services. Many countries do this. And "demilitarize" them, i.e. removing the ability to use lethal force and weapons of war for the majority of them. Many countries also do this. This is not new.

Additionally, there needs to be more accountability. "Desk job" aint cutting it. Imagining you and me walking into a client's office, drag them through the hallway, put a boot in their head and justify it with "oh she was hysterical". Not only that they would get fired from their job, it's likely nobody would ever hire them again in that town. Then why do we afford officers so much immunity? That has gotta change. I can't help but keep thinking about the smug face of Derek Chauvin as he has his hands in his pockets and threaten to mace the bystanders pleading to him while slowly killing George Floyd. That's the kind of immunity that needs to put in check.

[Mikoyan]

Originally Posted by underscore

Though maybe for the first bit, let the officers think they can turn them off (have the light go out but it's still recording). It'd make it really easy to find and fire a lot of the shitty cops right off the bat if they think they can avoid being recorded when they break the law.

They already do that. Officer below didn't know about the 2 minute buffer.

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...-womans-breast
Rojas and his partner responded to a call about a possible dead woman in a residential unit, sources said. Once the two officers determined the woman was dead, Rojas’ partner returned to the patrol car to retrieve something. During that time, LAPD officials say Rojas turned off his body-worn camera and fondled the woman’s breasts.

Although the officer deactivated his camera, a two-minute buffer on the device recorded the incident, officials say. In addition to allegations of assault, the department also is investigating Rojas’ work history.

[underscore]

It boggles my mind (but isn't really a surprise) that the when Americans look at ways to change up their policing they never seem to look beyond their own borders. I agree the first thing they should be doing is defunding but I find it difficult to believe more training has no benefit when in European nations it takes several years to become an officer.

Originally Posted by Nlkko

Statistically, body cams and more training have no effect on reducing police brutality. Read this thread which includes a study: https://twitter.com/samswey/status/1...271732224?s=20

That tweet links to the other tweet which links to the study on BWC (no actual source on the training claim btw): https://www.pnas.org/content/116/21/10329.short?rss=1

Police departments are adopting body-worn cameras in hopes of improving civilian–police interactions. In a large-scale field experiment (2,224 officers of the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, DC), we randomly assigned officers to receive cameras or not. We tracked subsequent police behavior for a minimum of 7 mo using administrative data. Our results indicate that cameras did not meaningfully affect police behavior on a range of outcomes, including complaints and use of force. We conclude that the effects of cameras are likely smaller than many have hoped.

While that is a large department, it's still one one city in one country over a very short timespan. I wouldn't write them off just because of that.

They also list this as part of their "measurement strategy"

i) Police use of force was based on officers’ self-reported use of force (in accordance with MPD policy). It included a count of all use of force incidents as well as measures of serious uses of force (as defined by MPD policy), nonserious uses of force, and use of force incidents by the race of the subject of force.

ii) Civilians can file complaints in two ways: with MPD itself or with the independent Office of Police Complaints. Our measure was the total number of complaints associated with an officer from both sources. We also disaggregated the complaints by disposition: sustained, not sustained, or unresolved due to insufficient facts.

Based on what we've been seeing out of the US lately, I'm pretty doubtful as to how much useful data you're likely to get out of those when cops seem to have no issue beating the shit out of people and numerous civilians have documented how hard it can be to actually file a complaint.

[6793026]

Privacy or not on body cams... it's an issue.
We couldn't even get people to wear wrist bands AND / OR have an app to track where newly landed visitors into BC during COVID due to location pin pointing is considered invasive.

Body cams versus video at EVERY intersection having a camera..... same privacy issue. We're playing with fire.

Oh, so it's OK to have body cams and NO cameras at every intersection of just taking pics of your car....

[CivicBlues]

REFUND THE POLICE

I mean seriously, can I get my money back? it's not doing what I expected it to do, I think it might be defective or something. I might come back and buy something else later. Can I speak to the manager? Thanks!

[twitchyzero]

Originally Posted by Mikoyan

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...-womans-breast

wrong place to check for pulse

[SumAznGuy]

Originally Posted by Mikoyan

They already do that. Officer below didn't know about the 2 minute buffer.

I saw another one where the officer purposely contorted his body in a certain way to obstruct the camera when he "found" drugs in the car.

Turns out the officer had a history of doing that and making drug "finds".

Supposedly he was fired and charged with many drug offenses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...rests-scandal/