The camera just up and stops working? I'm sure these cameras have a life span, just like any other piece of technology.
What I see, is The Constitution thrown right out the window when it comes to officer involved shootings. But, then again, that's the Left's ultimate goal.
Is somebody pretending that? **** em up apdst!!
I keep hearing people say "we need to hold cops to a higher standard" and that's fine but it needs to be a realistic standard. It also needs to be a standard that allows them to provide the service we require of them.
Personally I find it disturbing that so many appear to be convinced that the police are more of a problem in this country than the criminal element is.
Common sense would dictate that we use the evidence available.
Punishing cops because their camera wasn't working is absurd. We already expect cops to be mind readers, mental heath counselors, social welfare professionals, family counselors, etc. It's unrealistic and, frankly, damaging to society. In many parts of this country teachers are expected to baby sit kids when they're in school and cops are expected to baby sit them when they're not in school. In fact, the only people NOT expected to take care of the kids are their parents. To hell with that.
What we've seen so far from all these cop cameras is that sometimes they provide some additional perspective and sometimes they don't. They're not a bad tool but they also are no panacea and mandating their use or worse, punishing cops for not using them, is unreasonable.
There is a show already like that... a couple here, in fact.
Then let it malfunction...at least that would prove the cop didn't turn or take it off and give him/her an alibi. Anyway, how would the cop know it was malfunctioning until he/she got back to the station? If he knew it was malfuncting ....then he should turn it in and get another one before going on duty. Malfunctioning isn't a good excuse for taking it off before approaching a suspect.What if there's no, "scuffle", and the body-cam malfunctions? Then what?
Then let it malfunction...at least that would prove the cop didn't turn or take it off and give him/her an alibi. Anyway, how would the cop know it was malfunctioning until he/she got back to the station? If he knew it was malfuncting ....then he should turn it in and get another one before going on duty. Malfunctioning isn't a good excuse for taking it off before approaching a suspect.
You're the one that suggested the employment of common sense.
I forget we have a world wide audience.
There is one here to. Its called COPS. It has been on the air since 1989. It has even been parodied in "Drop Dead Gorgeous".
The original Reality Show.
If a cop's camera is on and streaming all the time then there is the potential that not only his personal information (ie. phone call with the wife) but also information regarding the general public will be exposed. What if the camera picks up the computer screen while he's running a warrant check?
Try this on for size, a cop responds to a traffic accident where a victim was ejected and had their head crushed. There's no reason that should become a public record. Here's one that happened to me. I was investigating possible damage to an aircraft we had on static display. The hatch was open and when I approached I could hear voices inside. Turned out that there were three kids in there hanging out (probably more than that). One of the kids was a 15 year old female. As she raised her arms so I could visually check her waist her sweatshirt pulled up and her tits popped out. There's no reason for that to be public either.
Since LutherF has brought-up valid concerns, and Polgara so nicely asked for a response, I'll kindly reply!Greetings, Lutherf. :2wave:
Logical arguments! :thumbs: I'll be interested in reading the responses, pro and con.
Well!Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of all cops wearing cameras all the time is that people like you and many others in this thread would use that streaming to scour the feeds for absolutely anything the cops did wrong and then sue the department. It would put an incredible chill on the ability of the cops to perform their duties and would likely cost the taxpayers of the municipalities millions of dollars every year in idiot legal expenses.
I made a stupid joke that was stupid... I know about Cops. Watched it a few times in the States and it is on here too... we also have Road Cops, Police 10-7, Motor Way Patrol (Kiwi Shows), Kalgoorlie Cops (Aussie cop show), Traffic Cops and Motorway Cops (British)
All better than Cops, IMO, too... Also get to see cops being reasonable with the public.
Aw, the American version has an episode "Tased and Confused"....
You have to love that.
Well!
To make an argument that the public video of illegal police actions should not occur because the police will be held accountable, is a pretty amazing argument to make - and good luck selling that one to the public!
To put this as a *highest* concern, could even come across sounding self-serving of police interests, rather than the public's.
But rest assured the point is moot, as explained above the video data does not enter the public domain unless it is chosen to be released via proper channels.
Additionally, the video can be used raw for legal and police purposes, and edited by the proper body(s) for the general public.
The technology is here, and I don't see it being stopped. Like all tools, digital technology is a double-edged sword, has it's pluses & minuses, and can be used for good or bad. But I think in general terms, public transparency and accountability of our government and it's actors is usually a good thing. And technology is getting us there.
And if encountering friction, "as instructed by my consulate" might be an interesting follow-up.Reasonable. I told my daughters when we are in the States and if I get pulled over to film the entire encounter. I will to and do exactly what you said... tell them it is for both our safety.
You know - I can try to understand this, and no one wants to hen-peck the boys in blue. But when they're on the job maybe off-color jokes, nudie pics, and flirting with waitresses isn't the best example of professionalism in uniform, and better reserved for when off-work.That's not at all what I'm saying. If a cop does something illegal then he should be punished. What I'm talking about is video of stuff like a cop doing 37 in a 35mph zone or flirting with a waitress while on duty going public. Maybe the camera will pick him up using a racial epithet or cussing another driver out under his breath. Maybe someone will text him a nudie pic or an off color joke and he'll laugh or comment. There has been a precedent set by the DoJ for investigating local police departments just to see what they can find. Stuff like that was already cited as indications that the Ferguson PD was corrupt so I figure agenda driven "community oversight committees" will find comparable stuff.
:lamo
(even though it's not a laughing matter, that was a good one)
Everybody, and that includes public servants, deserves the protections of the 4th Amendment. Mandating the use of a body camera is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
On a side note, I'm astonished that anyone would give a convicted criminal more credibility than they would a cop.
I do not, cameras are not the end all be all, and it is perfectly reasonable to accept testimony of a police officer over the speculation of the suspects mother in court.
I find it far more likely that these bloodthirsty orcs killed a teenager out of an inherent hatred of human life than the camera just happened to malfunction.The idea this officer toggled off his camera to fulfill a homicidal urge to kill someone is pure speculation on your part.
And if encountering friction, "as instructed by my consulate" might be an interesting follow-up.
But these kids don't mess around, and they stream live (to Facebook I believe).
Whether a troublesome civilian, or a police officer having an angry bad day, I can't help but believe when one knows the world is watching live they try to be on best behaviour.
I saw this with OWS live feeds in confrontational situations with angry police, that when it was announced "live feed, the world's watching" the situation quickly deescalated and became more polite and reserved.
I've heard gun advocates saying "an armed society is polite society". Perhaps so. But I'd say the same of those being video taped and thinking it's live. I even have experienced personally deescalating a traffic situation that was entering rage territory by simply producing my cell phone and pointing it at the individual following me. He freaked enough to do a Huey and take-off in the other direction to avoid being identified on video!
These little devices are powerful! :thumbs:
Cop is a volunteer job. If the requirement of the job, which is volunteer in exchange for money, is "wear a camera" then no cops rights are infringed.
I do not, cameras are not the end all be all, and it is perfectly reasonable to accept testimony of a police officer over the speculation of the suspects mother in court.
Cop is a volunteer job. If the requirement of the job, which is volunteer in exchange for money, is "wear a camera" then no cops rights are infringed.
Oh gawd, no.'The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has proposed one such policy. Under its body camera policy, if an officer fails to activate his camera or interferes with the footage the following policies kick in:
1. Direct disciplinary action against the individual officer.
2. The adoption of rebuttable evidentiary presumptions in favor of criminal defendants who claim exculpatory evidence was not captured or was destroyed.
3. The adoption of rebuttable evidentiary presumptions on behalf of civil plaintiffs suing the government, police department and/or officers for damages based on police misconduct. The presumptions should be rebuttable by other, contrary evidence or by proof of exigent circumstances that made compliance impossible.'
Cops that end up with missing body cam footage (accident or not) should have HUGE penalties to their testimony and credence. I agree with this harshness.
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?