- Joined
- Jun 23, 2014
- Messages
- 13,029
- Reaction score
- 6,995
- Location
- Near Atlanta Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
The White House announced Monday that President Barack Obama will sign an executive order meant to improve training for local law enforcement agencies that receive equipment through federal grant programs. Among the proposed initiatives is a 3-year, $263 million investment package, of which $75 million would go toward covering half the cost of 50,000 officer-mounted cameras -- a technology that has been widely cited as a necessary police reform following the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager shot and killed by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson in August.
Monday's announcement was greeted by some as a victory for transparency in law enforcement. Yet with almost 630,000 police officers working nationwide, it's not clear how much of an effect even 50,000 cameras would have.
Body cameras have long been a popular proposal among police reform advocates, who say that documenting interactions between officers and civilians can help to eliminate bias and uncertainty regarding alleged misconduct by either party. One frequently cited pilot program in Rialto, California, found that between 2012 and 2013, in the first year of the city using police cameras, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent.
Despite resistance from some police officials and union members who have called the cameras an unnecessary distraction for officers, departments in major cities like Chicago, New York, Minneapolis and Washington, D.C., as well as smaller cities like Ferguson, have started using cameras, or have at least announced plans to do so.
Obama's $75 million program, which still requires congressional approval, would seek to ease the financial burden of outfitting police officers with cameras by providing a 50 percent funding match to states and localities that decide to participate. (Individual cameras cost between $300 and $400, on top of which are the costs associated with storing and maintaining the data recorded by the devices.) But with no ability to compel local police departments to get behind this move, the administration must simply hope that enough law enforcement volunteers are willing to join the program
Obama Wants To Help Buy 50,000 Body Cameras For The Nation's 630,000 Police Officers
my question....especially for those who want this
What is the law regarding anything the officer tapes as to whether or not it can be used as evidence against the person being videoed?
Does the person have to be mirandized before anything they say or do can be used against them?
If not, i love the camera idea. It will stop a lot of criminals from getting away with stuff because of technicalities
And yes, they can be used against officers who probably shouldnt be on the force
seems like a win/win......no more cases thrown out
The cameras will be minimally effective if at all. It's another "feel good" idea.
The fact of the matter is that there will always be incidents where the emotional pull for one side or the other will outweigh whatever evidence is presented. There is nothing....absolutely nothing that will change the minds of some folks who believe that Trayvon Martin and/or Mike Brown were murdered. If there was video evidence that Brown punched Wilson, grabbed his gun, and ran back at him there would still be people out there blaming Wilson for stopping him in the first place.
This camera footage will be subpoenaed for everything and anything. Think about it, somebody gets their nose out of joint because they see a cop yelling at a jaywalker and next thing you know the request goes out for his or her camera footage of the incident. The cop didn't do anything wrong but the yelling will be cause for a civil action against the PD for "creating an uncomfortable environment".
One frequently cited pilot program in Rialto, California, found that between 2012 and 2013, in the first year of the city using police cameras, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent.
The cameras will be minimally effective if at all. It's another "feel good" idea.
The fact of the matter is that there will always be incidents where the emotional pull for one side or the other will outweigh whatever evidence is presented. There is nothing....absolutely nothing that will change the minds of some folks who believe that Trayvon Martin and/or Mike Brown were murdered. If there was video evidence that Brown punched Wilson, grabbed his gun, and ran back at him there would still be people out there blaming Wilson for stopping him in the first place.
This camera footage will be subpoenaed for everything and anything. Think about it, somebody gets their nose out of joint because they see a cop yelling at a jaywalker and next thing you know the request goes out for his or her camera footage of the incident. The cop didn't do anything wrong but the yelling will be cause for a civil action against the PD for "creating an uncomfortable environment".
Eh....
Come again?
The White House announced Monday that President Barack Obama will sign an executive order meant to improve training for local law enforcement agencies that receive equipment through federal grant programs. Among the proposed initiatives is a 3-year, $263 million investment package, of which $75 million would go toward covering half the cost of 50,000 officer-mounted cameras -- a technology that has been widely cited as a necessary police reform following the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager shot and killed by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson in August.
Monday's announcement was greeted by some as a victory for transparency in law enforcement. Yet with almost 630,000 police officers working nationwide, it's not clear how much of an effect even 50,000 cameras would have.
Body cameras have long been a popular proposal among police reform advocates, who say that documenting interactions between officers and civilians can help to eliminate bias and uncertainty regarding alleged misconduct by either party. One frequently cited pilot program in Rialto, California, found that between 2012 and 2013, in the first year of the city using police cameras, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent.
Despite resistance from some police officials and union members who have called the cameras an unnecessary distraction for officers, departments in major cities like Chicago, New York, Minneapolis and Washington, D.C., as well as smaller cities like Ferguson, have started using cameras, or have at least announced plans to do so.
Obama's $75 million program, which still requires congressional approval, would seek to ease the financial burden of outfitting police officers with cameras by providing a 50 percent funding match to states and localities that decide to participate. (Individual cameras cost between $300 and $400, on top of which are the costs associated with storing and maintaining the data recorded by the devices.) But with no ability to compel local police departments to get behind this move, the administration must simply hope that enough law enforcement volunteers are willing to join the program
Obama Wants To Help Buy 50,000 Body Cameras For The Nation's 630,000 Police Officers
my question....especially for those who want this
What is the law regarding anything the officer tapes as to whether or not it can be used as evidence against the person being videoed?
Does the person have to be mirandized before anything they say or do can be used against them?
If not, i love the camera idea. It will stop a lot of criminals from getting away with stuff because of technicalities
And yes, they can be used against officers who probably shouldnt be on the force
seems like a win/win......no more cases thrown out
Since you see familiar with the pilot, let me ask you, how much access does the general public have to these videos? What must be done?
Request the video in a politely worded letter. You will want to ask for a copy from the specific car, taken at the specific time that you were pulled over. If you don't know the license plate on the car, ask for the tape from the car being driven that day by the officer who ticketed you. Mention in your letter that you are making your request in accordance with your state's public access laws, and make sure you provide a method by which the police department can reach you.
Eh....
Come again?
There's always the internet:
How Do I Request Police in Car Video to Fight a Speeding Ticket? | eHow
I would add this however; were it to make an impact on how blacks view police, and make them feel more comfortable that the police officer has a camera, then it could do some good. Regardless of the facts though, blacks in this country are mistrustful of the police. And while much of that mistrust stems from a bunch race baiters like Sharpton, it is, however, the sad truth of it. So the question becomes, do you think it will have an impact on how blacks view police? I doubt it. Because you'll still have blacks breaking the law because they come from subpar (compared to whites) economic conditions, and we have a drug law in this country that has been disproportionately looking up blacks.
Although, 263 million dollars is really a drop in the bucket when we're talking about a multi-trillion dollar budget. And if it helps in some civil liberties cases, then it can't hurt.
A Study in Contrasts Between Rialto Police and Albuquerque Police in Regards to Body-Mounted Cameras - PINAC
Look, the goal is to reduce crime not to find more ways to point more fingers at cops. As an example, we put speed cameras at a bunch of intersections around town because it was going to make the intersections safer and people wouldn't be able to contest the photographic evidence. Well, the intersections where the cameras are definitely have slower traffic but I haven't seen any evidence that they're safer or that the streets in general are safer. Cop cameras are going to be just the same way. People ALREADY tend to chill out when the cops arrive and those that don't aren't likely to be deterred by a camera. Have you ever seen COPS? People damned near seem to WANT to get on that show!
The best way - and probably the only way - to make sure that we don't have too many renegade cops is to find them and punish them. Frankly, that's already happening and always has been happening. These incidents of "abuse" you see are few and far between but they get LOTS of air time because anti-cop folks pimp the videos.
It comes from more than Sharpton. It comes from neighborhoods that are infested with various red and blue clad cockroaches. It comes from good people that don't want to get lumped up because they "snitched". It comes from people who are the eyes and ears of drug dealers that have been taught to scream RACISM whenever they're confronted because that usually gets the cops to back off. It comes from an environment where success in legitimate endeavors is considered "selling out".
This is a step in the right direction, however, I'm anticipating the same excuses used with the dashcams, "Officer So-and-So's body camera was not functioning."
Lets just flush as much tax dollars down the drain as possible.
How often does that really happened Jango? I'll answer it, about as often as the cameras actually don't work. I've seen plenty of videos that show cops doing bad ****, so at this point I don't worry about it. Most cops are good guys, and they aren't going to want to protect a couple of bad apples.
On the other hand, how much legs do you think this Michael Brown thing would of had were they to of been leaked, or just put to the press, the chest mounted camera footage of the exchange between Michael Brown and Officer Wilson. For one thing, I doubt we'd have as many protests as we do/did. I mean, he had to resign from doing police work because of this mess. All because of a lie. This would be in place as much to protect the officers from wrongful charges being brought up than anything else.
How much has been spent on Ferguson, alone? These things will pay for themselves.
Let's say that the camera worked just fine and caught everything just exactly the way that Wilson said it happened. What would that solve? Yeah, maybe there wouldn't have been riots but would it have eased the tensions between cops and the community?
Obama Wants To Help Buy 50,000 Body Cameras For The Nation's 630,000 Police Officers
Wouldn't the control of a potential major riot be a huge success?
I agree that the deeper root of the problem is tension between the cops and the community. Thinking of proactive ways to help even the playing field, ie requiring cops to wear cameras, would be a step in the right direction.
The White House announced Monday that President Barack Obama will sign an executive order meant to improve training for local law enforcement agencies that receive equipment through federal grant programs. Among the proposed initiatives is a 3-year, $263 million investment package, of which $75 million would go toward covering half the cost of 50,000 officer-mounted cameras -- a technology that has been widely cited as a necessary police reform following the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager shot and killed by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson in August.
Monday's announcement was greeted by some as a victory for transparency in law enforcement. Yet with almost 630,000 police officers working nationwide, it's not clear how much of an effect even 50,000 cameras would have.
Body cameras have long been a popular proposal among police reform advocates, who say that documenting interactions between officers and civilians can help to eliminate bias and uncertainty regarding alleged misconduct by either party. One frequently cited pilot program in Rialto, California, found that between 2012 and 2013, in the first year of the city using police cameras, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent.
Despite resistance from some police officials and union members who have called the cameras an unnecessary distraction for officers, departments in major cities like Chicago, New York, Minneapolis and Washington, D.C., as well as smaller cities like Ferguson, have started using cameras, or have at least announced plans to do so.
Obama's $75 million program, which still requires congressional approval, would seek to ease the financial burden of outfitting police officers with cameras by providing a 50 percent funding match to states and localities that decide to participate. (Individual cameras cost between $300 and $400, on top of which are the costs associated with storing and maintaining the data recorded by the devices.) But with no ability to compel local police departments to get behind this move, the administration must simply hope that enough law enforcement volunteers are willing to join the program
Obama Wants To Help Buy 50,000 Body Cameras For The Nation's 630,000 Police Officers
my question....especially for those who want this
What is the law regarding anything the officer tapes as to whether or not it can be used as evidence against the person being videoed?
Does the person have to be mirandized before anything they say or do can be used against them?
If not, i love the camera idea. It will stop a lot of criminals from getting away with stuff because of technicalities
And yes, they can be used against officers who probably shouldnt be on the force
seems like a win/win......no more cases thrown out
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?