Skip to main content

Oakland cops at Oscar Grant protests, Nov. 5, 2010.
Most police don't like having their actions filmed. That's been pretty obvious in Ferguson, Missouri, given the number of journalists who have been arrested. Not to mention the number of citizens who have had their phones or cameras confiscated because they contain video or still shots of police at protests or other situations making arrests. Cops have blocked photographers (and sometimes roughed them up) and smashed their cameras whether they are journalists or just tourists. Such police behavior was typical at Occupy protests. They've used strobe lights to blind cameras and fired rubber bullets to block video from being recorded or still shots from being snapped. The Department of Justice has made clear that citizens have a broad right to record video of police activity. But that obviously hasn't filtered down everywhere it should.

Not that this new. Camera-wielders—protesters, journalists, passersby—have been special targets of police harassment, confiscation and whacks with billyclubs for decades.  The problem for them now is that photos and video can go viral while the police action is still underway.

There could be a change in the wind, however. Putting body cameras on the cops the same as dash cams in patrol cruisers is gaining support among police critics and even in a few law enforcement circles. Here's Christopher Mims reporting:
So it is in Rialto, Calif., where an entire police force is wearing so-called body-mounted cameras, no bigger than pagers, that record everything that transpires between officers and citizens. In the first year after the cameras' introduction, the use of force by officers declined 60%, and citizen complaints against police fell 88%. [...]

Michael White, a professor of criminology at Arizona State University and, as the sole author of the Justice Department's report on police and body-mounted cameras, says the cameras, now a curiosity, could soon be ubiquitous. It has happened before: Taser's guns went from introduction to use by more than two-thirds of America's 18,000 police departments in about a decade. "It could be as little as 10 years until we see most police wearing these," says Dr. White. [...]

In the U.K., where tests with them began in 2005, studies have shown that they aid in the prosecution of crimes, by providing additional, and uniquely compelling, evidence. In the U.S., in some instances they have shortened the amount of time required to investigate a shooting by police from two-to-three months to two-to-three days.

White's 2014 report—Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing the Evidence—notes that advocates of attaching body cameras to officers predict the outcome to be better behavior by both cops and the people they come into contact with, transparency that leads to more trust and fewer violent confrontations, and even less swearing and fewer racial slurs.

But these are merely perceptions since less than a handful of U.S. surveys—like the one in Rialto—have been undertaken to see whether the predicted outcome comes to pass. But the evidence we do have, from here and abroad, indicates that cop cams can make a positive difference. The question that arises is why a pallet or two of the tons of money spent on inundating police departments with military hardware couldn't be spent instead on outfitting every officer in America with a body camera. A lot more benefit to the citizenry doing that than handing out more machine-guns, grenades and mine-resistant armored vehicles.

But, whether cop cams become ubiquitous or not, it will take a good deal more than technology to change police forces in the systemic way that is so badly needed.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:01 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  SHould be standard equipment on ALL cops (44+ / 0-)
    In the first year after the cameras' introduction, the use of force by officers declined 60%, and citizen complaints against police fell 88%.
    No more impunity, hold them responsible.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:17:33 PM PDT

  •  At the very least (24+ / 0-)

    it can do no harm, and at least intuitively one would expect it would do good -- after all, how many of us know people who might be of questionable ethics but who behave virtuously as long as they're being watched?

    You're very right that it isn't a cure-all, but it sure seems like a good way to watch the watchers.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:18:47 PM PDT

    •  Yes, that watching business (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CenPhx, defluxion10, white blitz

      ...appears to be the basis of theistic religions. This would be for real, and far more effective.

      "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

      by eyeswideopen on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:55:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I seriously disagree with your assumption (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      berkshireblue
      "it can do no harm"
      Experience suggests lots of potential bad outcomes from mass surveillance, some apparently unintended consequences.

      As it stands now, the US is racing toward a surveillance state and the abuse, lack of controls and fucking fascist antics ofcops and their corporate Sugar Daddies in control of the increasingly pervasive red cams, dash cams, etc. suggest you are quite optimistic, at best.

      Glassholes are bad enough, now you want to give cops carte blanche to film all of their public interactions with cameras they control and nothing bad can happen?

      Really, what could go wrong?


      •  Great idea-we should all have body cameras (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        koNko

        while at work. Later it can be expanded to our private lives. Not just cops can cause death. All kinds of things happen that can cause death or injury.

        Drs, firefighters, EMT's, school crossing guards, the guy who operates the drawbridge in Grand Isle VT, all should be surveilled at all times. You never know when someone will screw up and we can sue them or incarcerate them or just villify them publicly.

        I'm sure this will help interpersonal relations too. Who can object to surveillance?

        "If you think you have it tough, read history books." Bill Maher

        by berkshireblue on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:42:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I work in such a place, actually (0+ / 0-)

          As a corporate serf working in an a high tech environment where all areas are secured and under surveillance, all computers networked and no personal cameras allowed (even visitors get a label on the mobile phone lens) I can report there are some positive benefits if accidents happen, but it can be a pretty oppressive atmosphere at times.

          But I digress.

          My point is simply that people should think through the implications of having ubiquitous cameras under the control of  the cops they intend to watch and how that is going to work.

          Who controls what and how to get a good outcome?

          What are the checks on the checks?

          What should be the laws and regulations?

          Technology gets out of control, regularly. Refer to Phillip K. Dick.

      •  People who are agents of the government (0+ / 0-)

        and who are armed should be watched, full stop.

        Their ability to surveil is already there - they have eyes and ears. All this does is create a record, and the ability for the record they create to be used against others is subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions.

        So no, I disagree with you.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:47:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, how will that work? (0+ / 0-)

          Who controls those cameras?  

          Who does the watching?

          What are the rules?

          What is the friggin plan?

          Just answer those questions. Links to established laws and best practices appreciated.

          I think your principle is:

          - privacy for citizens
          - openness & accountability of government

          So, how often does that happen?  And why not?  How will this time be different?

          I'm not an idiot, I'm just simple-minded and full of questions.

          If you are pressed for time, just answer my basic question: how does this cop cam thingy work?

  •  The London Metropolitan Police System is going (26+ / 0-)

    to equip 500 of its officers with bodycams to evaluate the technology.  

    Fredericksburg, VA just equipped its police with them.  Officers have noted that the cameras seem to deescalate some potential confrontations.
    http://news.fredericksburg.com/...

    The technology is here and definitely needs to be used on a routine basis.

    A word to the wise is sufficient. Republicans need at least a paragraph.

    by d3clark on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:18:49 PM PDT

    •  Because we can never have too much surveillance! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      berkshireblue

      And we will only be safe and free when every corner of the world is under the watchful eye of state protectors and their cameras 24/7.

      I'm thinking it might be even better to have cameras in every room of the house broadcasting directly to the Internal Affairs department of the local police so they can keep an eye on things in case any cops visit.

      /s

    •  By the way (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      berkshireblue

      London already has the greatest number of public surveillance cameras of any city in the world, so I applaud them adding thousands more.

      Enough of those and maybe people will stop having sex, the ultimate solution to all of this criminality by citizen, cops and other bipods.

      •  With the appropriately named "bodycams" (0+ / 0-)

        operational and "mounted" on police, at least they'll stop having sex around those cops.  Except for the exhibitionists.  

        A word to the wise is sufficient. Republicans need at least a paragraph.

        by d3clark on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:33:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, the cameras should work (13+ / 0-)

       Some police departments in Michigan are starting to experiment with the body-worn cameras. I think we all behave a little better when we know that we are being watched. I'm sure some authorities will "lose" critical video or a camera will "malfunction" at just the wrong time. But in general, it should help law enforcement and citizens. It's definitely worth a try.

    •  Actually, (20+ / 0-)

      they're just claiming the video is private and not subject to FOI requests, and refusing to release it in all cases.  Even for trials, when requested by the defense.

      Basically, if Police control the information, any video, etc., that exonerates police or puts defendants in a bad light will be released or leaked, and anything remotely incriminating (for the police) or exculpatory (for the defendant) will never be seen.

      Just having the cameras on them is not enough.

      190 milliseconds....

      by Kingsmeg on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:52:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  These body cams should (19+ / 0-)

        ... automatically beam to data to a server outside of police control. Neutral civilian territory. What is alarming and frustrating is the us-them warfare aspect.

        "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

        by eyeswideopen on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:59:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Day may come. Technology is still a wee bit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WillR

          behind the level needed to do that reliably wherever a cop may need to go.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:11:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But it works for surveillance of citizens (0+ / 0-)

            Funny, that.

            •  Not the same problem space, and not the same (0+ / 0-)

              need for reliability.

              To get an idea of the difference, think of the Boston Marathon bombings.  They were able to piece together pictures from multiple surveillance cameras, but... no motion and no sound. Not the stuff you would want to create a clear picture of what's going on -- sufficiently clear to decide who warned who, etc.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:59:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think that is the problem at all (0+ / 0-)

                Small devices with streaming cameras and audio with wireless connections are already ubiquitous in most areas of developed countries. We call them "smartphones".

                In fact, the technology of dash cams and wearable cams is existing and relatively cheap.

                That is not the problem.

                The problem is Who controls this technology and How, and also How it can be defeated and What can go wrong.

                Let me describe how to defeat it: put tape on the camera lens.

                Let's move on to the other questions.

                •  Never had no bars? (0+ / 0-)

                  And smartphones remain both too large and too delicate.

                  We're close, and there are no new discoveries needed.
                  It's just a matter of infrastructure, cost, and refinement.

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 05:17:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Good luck on dat. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kingsmeg, Eric Nelson

          In principle, citizens should have privacy and governments be under a watchful eye, but things tend to go in the opposite direction and as this thread demonstrates, people are so willing to jump-in blind under the assumption that cameras controlled by cops are all good.

          Doubtful.

      •  That would still be better than the status quo (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NoBlueSkies, METAL TREK, Kingsmeg

        In the current situation,  if the cop is right, the video would show it and the PD would almost certainly make sure it "leaked out, somehow".

        If the cop is wrong, "Where's the video?" would be a powerful powerful question.  One that would raise scrutiny from people on high, people who run for office.  One that could justify quick federal action.

        If the case had gone down a little differently, if Brown had survived to stand trial for ?????, it would be a powerful argument for the Defense, just the thing for injecting reasonable doubt.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:09:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's another possibility of course. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dinotrac
          If the case had gone down a little differently, if Brown had survived to stand trial for ?????, it would be a powerful argument for the Defense, just the thing for injecting reasonable doubt.
          Or, possibly, a powerful argument for the prosecution causing Brown to plead guilty to ????? in exchange for less than the maximum possible sentence rather than risk a jury or judge finding his behavior justified the maximum sentence. Works both ways and should, in the end, save a lot of court time in such cases and result in more just outcomes.
      •  That does need to get fixed. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, Kingsmeg, Eric Nelson

        I'm not sure that broad FOIA requests should be allowed, but if someone, such as a defendant in a criminal case or a plaintiff in a police abuse allegation, has a legitimate reason for access, the courts should grant it.

        The courts should entertain requests to redact certain sections/blur out parts of certain scenes that, on the whole, harm others or public safety more than they could possibly benefit the requesting party. They should also entertain requests to keep the material under seal in extreme cases. There may be ongoing investigations or confidential informants which would be compromised by unfettered release of videos.

        But, claims of "missing" videos should be viewed very skeptically by the court. If there's not a very good reason for missing video (preferably with a "paper trail"), the jury should be instructed (at the defendant's request) what videos were missing and the defendant should be able to argue that the content of those videos, had they not been mishandled, would tend to exonerate him. A bit like the exclusionary rule...

        •  Unfortunately, (0+ / 0-)

          courts grant cops blanket immunity to perjure themselves and destroy/withhold evidence at will.  Even when they know the cop is doing it, they never call them on it, much less impose sanctions.

          I think it's largely because they're part of the same revenue stream, as much as any sense of 'us vs. the bad guys'.

          190 milliseconds....

          by Kingsmeg on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:11:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Mazlfunctioning video in any case (8+ / 0-)

      should always result in dismissal of any charges and an outside investigation into precisely how the video was lost.

      Always, and automatically.  Preferably at a Federal level.

      •  That's taking it too far. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dinotrac, lgmcp, WillR, white blitz

        One should be able to consider the existence of a video malfunction, but technology will not always work flawlessly, so making it an automatic case-killing factor is unwarranted.  If there's other evidence for or against the matter, especially ("Yes, it's true that like five guys saw you do it, but the officer's camera malfunctioned, so you get off").

        •  Absolutely it should be an automatic dismissal. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BYw

          There is no excuse whatsoever for any policeman to go out on patrol with a malfunctioning video unit.  This is simple technology, maintaining it is straightforward, and if it "fails" that is a pretty good statement that it was turned off.

      •  Dead people are not much comforted (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        koNko

        by dismissal of charges, and those are the very cases where video is most likely to be mysteriously unavailable.

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:47:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's way too extreme. (0+ / 0-)

        There really are equipment malfunctions and accidents and, across the US, it will happen regularly even if the equipment is maintained properly. (If nothing else, sometimes filling from a jelly doughnut will drip onto the lens and obscure the video.)

        Such a rule would cause criminals to shoot cops trying to arrest them and then shot bullets through the camera electronics/storage (or just take them) since the "lack of video" would make them untouchable - even if another cop's camera caught the whole thing. If you believe that's okay, you should move somewhere where there ARE no police as that would likely be the result.

        Suppose an officer is shoved from behind into a pond and his camera electronics shorts out, ten thugs then beat him to death and it's all caught by a high def security video that allows identifying the assailants, the assailants' cell phones show they were all there at that exact time, and the assailants post YouTube videos of the event. Do you think the charges should be dismissed?

        If, during a natural disaster, the police are out patrolling on foot working 16 hour shifts, the electricity is out, and the logistics of keeping camera batteries charged prevents that, is then open season on cops? Shoot one and, regardless of all other evidence, you walk?

        Why not extend this to ordinary citizens? If you don't record you own murder, your murder walks free...

        •  All those excuses make me really sad, but (0+ / 0-)

          I'm sorry - if you can't make your video system work as you arrest someone, there should be an automatic presumption of malfeasance in place.

          I don't don't want to rain on your parade or the police's, but if you can't document what happened, it didn't happen.

          And, if this results in the occasional acquittal of a guilty party, I can accept that as the price of liberty for the rest of us just fine.

          •  So the only reality is what has been... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            berkshireblue

            ...documented by a specific camera? So, almost everyone in prison should be let go since their crimes "didn't happen"? Seriously?

            Even with some evidence missing, there can often be enough to convict beyond reasonable doubt. To discard ALL evidence because some bit that could have been available is not available is absurd.

            By the way, obviously the same rule would apply to cops (they have the same legal protections as everyone else). If their partner's video camera "broke" during a fight with a suspect, no prosecution of the officer would be possible because "there's missing video" - regardless of what their own video camera recorded.

            The courts (juries and judges) should be the ones that decide how to weigh the missing evidence in each case. If the defense or prosecution believes the lack of video that, in the absence of failure (induced by either party) of equipment or processes, would help them, they could petition the court for remedies. Remedies could include dismissal (for example, where all the other evidence would be viewed in a different light if the missing video were available and it was somewhat likely that the information on that video would have caused that to happen). More common remedies would range from none to the jury being told about the missing video and both parties being able to argue that the video would have supported their position.

            The real world is not a perfect place. Absolute rules rarely work well.

      •  Yeah, let's throw out our whole justice system! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        koNko

        No more evidence, just videos. No video, no crime. You're not really dead if the camera didn't see the killer being arrested. Those criminals didn't rape, kill, rob, if their arrest wasn't filmed...in color...with clear audio...uploaded to YouTube. And, of course, this will be enforced by the feds who have no jurisdiction over most crimes.  

        It will really simplify criminal procedure-just need the latest video technology.

        "If you think you have it tough, read history books." Bill Maher

        by berkshireblue on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:49:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obviously (14+ / 0-)

    If you are doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't have a problem with a cop cam.

    I am a statistician, not a magician although we are easily confused. I guess that explains why people keep trying to tie me in chains and place me under water.

    by Edge PA on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:28:09 PM PDT

    •  WTF? It's about RealityTV 24/7. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Edge PA, white blitz

      Cops will demand D-list celebrity wages.

      (actually pretty stressful to wear one all day, I should think.)

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:32:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Give it to them. (5+ / 0-)

        But tax the rich to pay for it.

        "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

        by eyeswideopen on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:01:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They're usually activated at the beginning... (15+ / 0-)

        Of a field contact. So it's not recording the cop while he's on his lunch break talking to a friend. Nobody expects these officers to be angelic human beings who never swear or get irritated. But we do expect them to be respectful, competent professionals when carrying out their duties.

        •  But the Frugenson police (9+ / 0-)

          Believe police cameras should remain in a box in a storeage room.  They have Dash Cams, it just isn't a priority to mount them.

          Agreed they don't need them during lunch.  But the default question during and incident should be why wasn't it on.

          I am a statistician, not a magician although we are easily confused. I guess that explains why people keep trying to tie me in chains and place me under water.

          by Edge PA on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:13:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes. Policies will need to be developed... (6+ / 0-)

            That specify the exact situations when the cameras need to be activated, with discipline for any non-compliance.

            I didn't know that Ferguson PD had dash cams, but hadn't mounted them. That's terrible. At a certain point, it seems to me that a failure to utilize purchased equipment becomes a misuse of public funds, and there needs to be accountability there as well.

          •  I've heard this... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            berkshireblue

            ...but does anyone have a reliable citation for it? Have we heard from Ferguson officials or others why they were not installed and in use?

            Since there is no legal requirement for them (unless there is some state or local law I'm not aware of), it may not be a priority over buying another police car or accelerating the hiring of an additional officer. Ferguson has fairly high crime rates and fairly low police:resident ratio compared to many areas.

            There could be legitimate reasons. For example, maybe they were still developing policies and training and they were making reasonable progress on that. Or, maybe the cameras have only been in storage for a few weeks. Or, maybe they only have enough for half the cars and the remainder are on backorder and it would cost more to install them in two waves. Or, maybe the current union contract has some sort of a twist in it that makes deployment impractical until the contract is renegotiated (something regarding disciplinary processes).

            Inquiring minds want to know.

            •  Not as easy as just turning on the camera (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              koNko

              I assume implementation of such video requires policies to collect, store, retreive, retain and destroy such video records. Once you have them they are discoverable and subject to FOIA etc. So, someone has to be tasked with retreiving them. If someone asks for all video of Officer so and so arresting people, someone has to go through all the videos.  Once you began using it, you create an expectation it will always be used so you have to care for and replace the equipment. If you can't find the video requested or if the audio is bad it will be held against you. Nothing is simple these days.

              And, as a practical matter, how often is such video really needed? It's not like you're usually recording a crime. You're just recording what the officer is doing. Maybe if you're in a place with a lot of use of force complaints it makes sense. But for the average dept it may be creating a ton of work for not much practical use.

              And, just because it's on video doesn't mean the pictures are reliable evidence. You know how the instant replay can depend on the camera angle. When does the camera engage? What area does it cover? What kind of angle does it use?

              "If you think you have it tough, read history books." Bill Maher

              by berkshireblue on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:03:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Dashcams no panacea (0+ / 0-)

              They seem to be designed for recording traffic stops. If the cruiser isn't pointing in the direction of the incident, anything recorded by the dashcam is useless in determining who did what.

    •  Just like they told us when W was in office! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koNko

      "If you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide". That's what they told us! If it was good enough for US under the Patriot Act, it should be good enough for officers NOW!

      I have family in law enforcement (3 generations) & I support this idea! If an officer is doing his job properly, the camera will vindicate him. If an officer is NOT, then we can use it to fire and/or prosecute him. Hell, maybe bad officers might decide to LEAVE the force if they know they're going to be on film.

      A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.

      by METAL TREK on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:48:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is the credo of the surveillance state (0+ / 0-)

      We find it applies to citizens more often, unfortunately.

      And then, there is the whole "eye of the beholder" thingy when it comes to "evidence".

      Bro, get a good lawyer on retainer, and first thing, bounce this off them:

      If you are doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't have a problem with {method A, B, C ...}.
  •  Next, we require that cameras be mounted on guns (7+ / 0-)

    and the NRA goes nuts. (well, nuttier)

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:31:12 PM PDT

    •  Cameras on Tasers (15+ / 0-)

      The funny thing is that the Tasers used by Phx PD (or it may be Maricopa County Sheriff's Office - I would have to doublecheck my file) have a camera that is turned on every time the safety is disengaged. Now ask me why the defense can't get the video from the Tasers when our clients have been tased?

      Because the department has never downloaded the computer program that allows them to gather the video from the Taser itself. For real. That's the excuse. And courts let them get away with it.

      •  As the defense you should have access... (5+ / 0-)

        to the taser to download the data yourself.

        A mind like a book, has to be open to function properly.

        by falconer520 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:39:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And if you ask them why not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cville townie

        dollars to donuts they'll say its not budgeted.

      •  Then... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cville townie

        ...citizens should go to their city council and get a law passed requiring effective implementation of video surveillance programs. I'm surprised this has not happened in areas where it seems a lot of people are concerned about police misconduct.

        Although... I used to live in an area where media reports would have you believe that there was a lot of concern about police misconduct. However (in my nonscientific and limited sample size) I found that people I talked to in the "targeted" communities actually were glad to let the police have more latitude. They felt that following lawful police orders, not treating cops with disdain, and not committing crimes would almost always insulate them from police misconduct even if they didn't really respect the cops much. They were much more scared by the small percentage of dangerous criminals in their own community than they were of the police. They seemed to be more pragmatic than principled on the issue.

  •  The cops can be trained to do better (9+ / 0-)

    if their boss sees what they are doing in the field .
    A bad behavior can be seen and then worked on .

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:32:51 PM PDT

  •  big brother's added a lot of weight to everyone's (6+ / 0-)

    shoulders - soon we'll all be piggy-backed

    http://www.thenation.com/...

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:32:54 PM PDT

    •  Technology tends towards (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      worldlotus, cville townie, BYw

      ...miniaturization. If they can put cams on migrating birds, this will be a piece of cake.

      "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

      by eyeswideopen on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:03:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  here's your RF-ID chip with CCD imager /nt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, dinotrac

        Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

        by annieli on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:04:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If I'm in a position of power (5+ / 0-)

          ...and ultimate responsibility for other people's lives by virtue of carrying weapons under cover of authority, then I should have them. Along with higher wages, that should sort out the problem nicely.

          Knock on effect might be that officers could instantly get the help they may need in a serious situation without having to stop and make a call, and assisting officers would already know what's happening before they show up to render assistance.

          I personally am glad that the various cells in my body have sensors that communicate to others what is going on. Otherwise, protoplasmic goo. With an autoimmune disease.

          "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

          by eyeswideopen on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:13:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Pigs are little more uncooperative than birds. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annieli, OldDragon, white blitz, BYw

        Birds don't have an innate revulsion to having their nasty behavior documented.

        •  Redundancy would help (0+ / 0-)

          Redundant back up systems for when the main one goes down for whatever reason. If the second one goes down too, intent to destroy evidence becomes obvious.

          "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

          by eyeswideopen on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:08:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You know, by using the word pigs to describe a (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ban nock, lgmcp, METAL TREK

          whole group of people, you are dehumanizing.  So I guess its ok for others to keep using the word thug, or animal.  Cant we be better than them?

          •  been reading all kinds of things on this web site (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zmom

            lately.

            “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

            by ban nock on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:43:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You may address them as you wish (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annieli

            I find they are dehumanizing us and many of us are just sitting there and taking it and some seem to think that no matter what the cops do we shouldn't do a thing.

            I disagree.

            And.... the so-called 'good cops' we are all supposed to respect, where are they?

            Haven't seen any of them: they're all silent.

            Haven't heard any cops refusing to take part in all the reindeer games. It's good times for them.

            Respect is earned and they have lost it. It's gonna be a long time before the smell of pork is gone.

            Thanks for taking time out of your day to complain about me when this is about cops killing people and stomping on our rights and nobody doing jack shit about it.

             

            •  So I guess you are choosing to ignore the (0+ / 0-)

              point of how racism plus dehumanization causes people to do horrible things to other people, isn't that is kinda why the community of Ferguson is in pain today?

              This should be about getting justice for Michael Brown, de-militarizing the police forces, getting our society to have a paradigm shift on how we are to be served and protected, and the biggest challenge of all, yes, seeing each person for who they really are and how they act in society, not judging by color of skin, religious belief, economic status, who they love or the job they keep.

              So before you get all over me about not focusing on what's important, maybe you should get out of your own hate, because it appears that is whats most important to you today.

              •  Oh my... Now Ferguson is my fault. (0+ / 0-)

                Why can't I use my fabulous power for something good, like making myself rich?

                Your attitude is offensive and ridiculous but also sort of entertaining. I like it when people think I have power I don't see.

                  Heh

                (Don't click that.)

              •  PS (0+ / 0-)
                before you get all over me about not focusing on what's important, maybe you should get out of your own hate, because it appears that is whats most important to you today.
                You fucking started this.

                Don't start whining if you get confronted on it.

                •  You post a comment, I comment back, that's (0+ / 0-)

                  what this is, a blog.  You certainly don't have to agree with my comments, but man, you are wound a little too tight - I honestly hope you have a nice evening, that's not snark.

                  •   Take some responsibility. (0+ / 0-)

                    Do not start shit with people then blame them for it, and then whine about it.

                    I'm wound too tight? I didnt start shit with you and then get all pissy.

                    That is some Grade-A stupid shit.

                    And LEARN from this.

                    Do not talk to me if you are going to piss on me and then get whiny.

                    I won't be bothering you.

                    There's a million people here. Go talk to one of them.

  •  When you can't even get them to wear their badges (20+ / 0-)

    getting them to be compliant with new laws is going to be tough.

    Also recall that Ferguson Police already purchased dash-cams for their cars, but haven't considered it a priority to actually get them installed - evidently they are still sitting in boxes...

    Inside of me are two dogs. One is mean and evil. The other is gentle and good. The two dogs fight all the time. Which dog wins? The one I feed the most.

    by bakeneko on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:46:55 PM PDT

    •  And, indeed, it appears (10+ / 0-)

      at least the Mo. Hwy patrol is required to wear them:

      Missouri Revised Statutes
      Chapter 43
      Highway Patrol, State
      Section 43.130

      Uniforms--allowance to members--vehicles and equipment.

      43.130. 1. The superintendent shall prescribe a distinctive style of uniform and badge for members of the patrol to be made of the material and of the color he specifies, and it shall be unlawful for any person to wear the prescribed uniform or badge, or any distinctive part thereof, except on order of the superintendent. The uniform shall be purchased at the times the superintendent requires, and the superintendent shall fix a uniform allowance for such purpose for each member of the patrol.

      2. The members of the patrol shall, at the expense of the state, be furnished with the vehicles, equipment, arms, ammunition, supplies and insignia of office as the superintendent deems necessary, all of which shall remain the property of the state and be strictly accounted for by each member of the patrol. All such vehicles and equipment shall be distinctively marked, and all vehicles used by members of the patrol shall be distinctively lighted at night.

      3. Members of the patrol shall wear their uniform and insignia of office at all times when on duty, unless otherwise designated by the superintendent.

          (RSMo 1939 § 8355, A.L. 1943 p. 652, A.L. 1949 p. 293, A.L. 1957 p. 619, A.L. 1978 H.B. 1048)

      Is it better to lose than be lost?

      by Publius2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:06:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  3. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bakeneko, blueoasis, cville townie, BYw

        Members of the patrol shall wear their uniform and insignia of office at all times when on duty, unless otherwise designated by the superintendent, or one of your cop brothers kills another innocent person.

      •  If they aren't wearing badges, (6+ / 0-)

        I can only presume that their superintendent has told them to take them off.

      •  'Badge cams' required could help, with the feed (6+ / 0-)

        ..going directly to an independent govt. bureau or oversight body as suggested  upthread by eyeswideopen

        3. Members of the patrol shall wear their uniform and insignia of office at all times when on duty, unless otherwise designated by the superintendent.
        Any officer while on the job must be properly equipped 'at all times', and that includes their badge fitted with a real time camera.

        the cameras on a pair of glasses like in Rialta, Ca. could be taken off if the officer wanted to edit his/her activities, but a badge cam would, by law, be required to remain on

        •  Privacy issues: an ongoing ACLU concern .. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bakeneko, koNko

          With surveillance cameras being deployed all over America, policing the public on the rise.

          With police required to wear cameras it could act as a counterbalance, a check on that trend (?)

          New York Times by Randall Stross | Published: April 6, 2013  

          Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, says: “We don’t like the networks of police-run video cameras that are being set up in an increasing number of cities. We don’t think the government should be watching over the population en masse.” But requiring police officers to wear video cameras is different, he says: “When it comes to the citizenry watching the government, we like that.”

           - emphasis added

          This sounds reasonable:
          Mr. Stanley says that all parties stand to benefit — the public is protected from police misconduct, and officers are protected from bogus complaints. “There are many police officers who’ve had a cloud fall over them because of an unfounded accusation of abuse,” he said. “Now police officers won’t have to worry so much about that kind of thing.”
          Because this:
          .. it will take a good deal more than technology to change police forces in the systemic way that is so badly needed.
          transparency for all could be a way of limiting the growing surveillance of the public that is harmful to society (authoritarian police state)  by floating the idea of turning the cameras around for balance and accountability that could bridge the divide between the police and the people. (?)

          Instead of what we are witnessing today in too many cities, where the police are literally seen and in method/tactics, as an occupying  or invading military force.

          And a requirement that some minimum percentage of any local police force must be actual citizens of the township. municipality (or whatever) that they police - imo

          Thx MB

          •  I'm kind of raising these questions elsewhere (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eric Nelson

            But looks like a majority of Kossacks are lined-up and ready to accept mass-surveillance by cop mounted cameras controlled by the Police.

            Oh.

            And then there are stickers.

            Oh.

    •  They intend to engage in rampant dishonesty (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CenPhx, bakeneko, OldDragon, BYw

      to escape natural and logical consequences for fucking with innocent people

      They INTEND to hurt people.

      Cops are a call to violence.

  •  The ROI for agencies make them a no-brainer... (18+ / 0-)

    The implication of an 88% decrease in complaints, and 60% reduction in the use of force is that cities will save a TON of money by outfitting officers with cameras. Yes, Rialto is a small sample size, and maybe those reductions won't translate to other areas. But most of the focus on the body cams has been how it will effect citizen complaints and lawsuits. One other area in which I think they'd be helpful is in officer discipline. Frequently, cities are unable to prove accusations against officers, which makes terminating or suspending even a known troublemaking officer difficult. Having a video record of a cop's interactions while on the job should make it easier for agencies to deal with problem officers, and save money in terms of officer discipline, and legal fees defending discipline. They would also help citizen oversight committees evaluate officers and police behavior.

    They won't solve everything. I agree that they're just a small part of much needed comprehensive reforms. But I think they're a damn good tool. Frankly, given that you can get a decent body cam for less than half an officer's daily wage, there's no reason not to outfit police with them.

  •  The cops in Ferg. don't even (5+ / 0-)

    have dash cams.  There is no police recording of the MB incident.

    More than that, it simply appears the cops either don't know or care what the law is and will arrest people without probable cause.  They do not care about lawsuits.

    So the real remedy is taking badges away when rights are violated.

    Is it better to lose than be lost?

    by Publius2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:02:33 PM PDT

  •  They would just turn them off. n/t (4+ / 0-)
  •  Cameras are just another piece of evidence to be (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CenPhx, PeterHug, nosleep4u, NoBlueSkies, koNko

    tampered with.

    Cops value lying and dishonesty and manipulating the legal system.

    Cameras won't stop that, UNLESS they are on FULLTIME and constantly uploading to storage, such that if the stream gets cut off, everybody knows.

    However, what we see in Ferguson and everywhere else in the country with more than 3 cops is that cops protect each other: one murders a person, the rest of them circle the wagons and start lying and cheating and tampering with evidence, releasing unrelated video, red herrings and the like.

    Those fucking PIGS in Ferguson aren't done doing this YET.

    They'd just shut off the cameras and say "make us turn them on".

    This is why any remotely serious attempt to fix Ferguson will require the unemployment of almost every "police officer" they have as they all have enthusiastically participated in this violent occupation of this small town, killing people, shooting people, arresting journalists - it's no fucking different then Uzbekistan.

    And it is being allowed to continue while people kick around ideas and waste time.

    Fire them all.

    Start over.

    And no: nothing is actually going to be done. !0 years from now this will all be the same just as we're saying now.

    At some point it will be us or them.

    I vote for us.

    •  I meant (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PeterHug, kingfishstew, NoBlueSkies, koNko

      cops try so hard to do the right thing, they are above-average morality-focused people, persevering on doing the right thing despite the temptations around them.

      They love of the Constitution and our rights is so special, I am just sickened when I see some bad man calling them names and suggesting - even for a moment - that a police office would TELL UNTRUTHS or even tamper with evidence.

      It hurts my heart to even write these hateful words. Cops have such a hard job. Even though fisherman get killed more often than they do, cops still have a hard, thankless task and none of them ever is prepared for the reality of this trying job.

      Valiant Police Officers would be proud to wear these cameras to show everybody their professionalism and good conduct.

      God Bless these police officers.

      •   Think of all the glorious battles, I mean arrests (0+ / 0-)

        that would be recorded by these cameras. They will long sing of the day saved the city from the threat of individually sold cigarettes.

        - Officer Klang, Imperial Klingon Police, ops, I mean anywhere U.S.A. Police.

        •  At least in that case... (0+ / 0-)

          ... the ME concluded that the alleged illegal cigarette vendor was murdered. I haven't heard any such determination in the Brown case. Though how anyone can justify shooting someone from a distance six times for jaywalking is going to be very interesting. Even if Brown's blood work showed that he'd used pot in the recent past. (Like that actually mattered.)

      •  That's just it (0+ / 0-)

        Though you say it in all snarkishness, good officers SHOULD be willing to display their professionalism and good conduct.  

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:52:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Create a legal presumption (6+ / 0-)

      There's a legal presumption that when cops have access to evidence and it is destroyed or lost, the presumption in court is that it would've helped the defense.

      Build a presumption into the national law people are trying to get passed to require all cops to wear body cameras. Create a presumption that says if the department has cameras and the cop had a camera, if no footage is recovered from the camera and the state cannot prove a simple equipment malfunction, it is presumed the evidence would have helped the legal side opposite the police in court, whether that side is a criminal defendant or a civil plaintiff.

      This will build in the incentives to stop cops from turning off or disabling their cameras.

      •  That's not enough. (4+ / 0-)

        That only gets their victims out of jail after a nice lengthy week behind bars. After a couple thousand in "fines" and "processing fees" racked up. And maybe a beating or two.

        There needs to be automatic sanction if they tamper with a recorder, with firing and automatic criminal charges for repeated offenses.

        Otherwise, nothing keeps them from just turning off or sabotaging recorders over and over.

        •  My initial feeling on this... (0+ / 0-)

          ...was that the cameras should always be on whenever officer was on active duty or interacting with someone in an official role (so, they could be off when two cops are on break eating doughnuts and talking, but when a citizen walks up and says "officer, where is the nearest doughnut shop?", they must be turned on immediately - perhaps saving the last ten seconds of a continuous, but not normally stored when "off" loop, so the initial contact is also saved).

          However, reading more and thinking more, there ARE cases where turning off the camera may be appropriate. Mostly these are around talking to "confidential informants" or  witnesses who are willing to give a hint to a cop about who did something but not willing to be "on the record". To put such witnesses at risk or cause them to clam up would not be good for the public. Careful polices need to be established (including that any data stored on the officer's person needs to be encrypted -- we don't want people killing officers to find out who they have been talking to in the last hour).

          •  There would/will be great resistance... (0+ / 0-)

            ... to having the cameras on all the time. And I can actually understand that. I would rather not have how many doughnuts I ate during coffee break recorded or my trip to the men's room but if the officer touches his tazer, firearm, billyclub, and any other piece of official equipment, then the camera turns on. What would be wrong with that?

          •  Alright (0+ / 0-)

            you do have a valid point.

            However, before a cop turns off a recorder, the reason should always be stated into the recorder.

            Failure to do so should be dealt with harshly and automatically, as should lying about why a recorder was turned off.

  •  Two points... (6+ / 0-)

    1. Kingsmeg's comment reminded me that what matters more than if the police are wearing cameras is the question, "Who is looking at the video?" After all, in Ferguson, use of force reports are generated by the arresting officer and then handed to a police chief who doesn't care. I doubt looking at video of the incident would make him care more.

    2. I work with an extremely sophisticated inventory control and access control software everyday, and supervise its use by dozens of employees. One thing that I have taken away from that experience is that no technology is a replacement for ethical behavior. You may have better reporting, but that in itself is not enough to change behavior.

    “The aim of mankind should be to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.”--Edith Hamilton (1867-1963)

    by cinepost on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:12:23 PM PDT

    •  Police are the most ethical people ever. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, white blitz

      They are so filled with ethics, their auras are blinding.

      Good folk, them cops.

      Real nice fellas.

      Wouldn't tear gas a fly.

      •  I think these positions (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xxdr zombiexx, cville townie

        ...of power attract psychopaths in greater numbers.

        Someday, there will be a genetic test for psychopathy that should be able to be employed to disqualify them from positions of power and responsibility.

        The battle is between non-psychopaths and psychopaths. And there is a political party devoted to psychopaths and psychopathic memes. Greedy Old Psychopaths.

        "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

        by eyeswideopen on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:32:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Video may not make a splash in the... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eyeswideopen, lgmcp, white blitz

      ...chief's office, but it can turn a jury.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:37:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Mos of the time , nobody, but... (0+ / 0-)

      in a case like this one, there would be one hell of a lot of scrutiny.

      And you wouldn't want to be the cop who said, "Gee. I must not have turned it on. How could that happen?"

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:18:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's getting bad enough that... (7+ / 0-)

    ...people will soon be asking for cameras to be placed all over the place just to protect themselves from the police (and other wrongdoers, like fraud artsts).

  •  Can the cameras be disabled at will, I wonder? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, NoBlueSkies, koNko

    The dinosaurs never saw that asteroid coming. What's our excuse?
    ~~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

    by smileycreek on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:03:28 PM PDT

  •  "citizen complaints against police fell 88%." (3+ / 0-)

    Cops really don't like citizen complaints.

    You'd think they'd like anything that reduced citizen complaints by almost 90%. You'd think they'd LOVE it. Unless ... it caused them some other kind of problem ... like ... getting caught.

  •  Smokey Brear says: Only YOU can prevent ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999

    Forrest Fires.

    And only YOU can prevent police brutality. Don't just talk about, get involved in your local politics.

  •  Where do the Police Unions stand on this? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    white blitz

    I would expect a knee jerk no.

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:38:18 PM PDT

  •  More tax revenue going to police & military (0+ / 0-)

    I assume these cameras would need to be paid for, and that the rich still don't want to pay more taxes like they did in the pre-Reagan era.  But I guess it would help.  It seems nothing real happens anymore unless it's on camera.  

  •  new police equipment accessory: lens caps /nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, white blitz

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:44:23 PM PDT

  •  No doubt: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NoBlueSkies, white blitz
    But, whether cop cams become ubiquitous or not, it will take a good deal more than technology to change police forces in the systemic way that is so badly needed.
    Still, at the moment stopping egregious civil rights offenses would be a step forward. And who knows, once they are forced to deal with the citizens as human beings over time some consciences might awaken.

    “Poverty wants much; but avarice, everything” Publilius Syrus

    by gelfling545 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:44:45 PM PDT

  •  I'm all for it. But it's a long term solution to (0+ / 0-)

    a short term problem . . . things look likely to spread beyond Ferguson from what I'm reading.

    A drowning man can not learn to swim. -- Chris Lonsdale

    by Rikon Snow on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:45:10 PM PDT

  •  They should have cameras on their bodies (0+ / 0-)

    But more importantly, they should find ways to attach a camera to their guns.

  •  Interesting how this is an odd parallel to (5+ / 0-)

    teacher accountability- the right wing is all for subjecting teachers to very close, quantifiable scrutiny, and basing all personnel actions on test results. The same right wing is totally against subjecting police behavior to uniform scrutiny. To me it looks like a case of whose ox is being gored.

  •  Somehow.... (0+ / 0-)

    ...I don't think it will stop the bad cops.  I mean the number of reporter threatened by cops on camera, like the al jazzers reporters the other day, doesn't give me hope.  And the bad cops will find ways to loose the cameras when they have incriminated evidence on them or break them in the 'struggle' or smear the lenses etc.  and if the good cops and leadership does nothing when this happens nothing will change.  Like the bad cops that make sure they beat people at the back of thier car when the car has a camera.

    But maybe.  I can hope I guess.  But how about we require all interrogations be video tapped first.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:51:07 PM PDT

  •  "it will take a good deal more than" cameras, imho (0+ / 0-)

    I'm reminded of the disappearing CIA filming of torture.  

  •  The problem is the humans who are cops & (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GrindtheHills

    cameras can be disabled, because the police work for the evil 1%.

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:03:30 PM PDT

  •  There will be an astonishing number of camera (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CitizenOfEarth, lgmcp

    malfunctions at critical moments.

    •  If there are two (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lgmcp

      backup systems that automatically deploy when one goes down, and all 3 go down at once, we can get a pretty high level of certainty of police malevolent intent.

      "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

      by eyeswideopen on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:19:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  and/or damaged memory chips (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GrindtheHills

      "sorry chief, the memory chip musta got crushed when the purp bum rushed me."


      No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle.

      by CitizenOfEarth on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:39:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nonetheless, cumulatively if certain officers (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WillR, Meteor Blades

      have a surprisingly high rate of "malfunctions" in relation to their peers their superiors would have the ability (if not necessarily the will) to note that those are the specific officers who have something to hide.  

      Doesn't help with every incident, but over time it could help weed out the worst officers.

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:58:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Posse Comitatus Act. (0+ / 0-)

    Will some some kos legal eagles please look into the Posse Comitatus Act of the 1800's?  Wiki here:  here

    We are a nation that respects religious beliefs, but also the right not to have those beliefs imposed upon you by others...and we should therefore keep it out of other people’s business — and bedrooms. George Takei 7/1/14

    by Lipstick Liberal on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:16:35 PM PDT

    •  If this small police force had Army uniforms... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CitizenOfEarth

      and equipment and used Army vehicles, isn't it that a violation of this law?  Basically, our Army shouldn't be policing our neighborhoods with assault weapons and tanks.

      We are a nation that respects religious beliefs, but also the right not to have those beliefs imposed upon you by others...and we should therefore keep it out of other people’s business — and bedrooms. George Takei 7/1/14

      by Lipstick Liberal on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:21:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  RoboCop Uniform (circa 1987 movie) (0+ / 0-)

    RoboCop Uniform now seems to be standard issue. Amazing how futuristic it looked back then.

    And the corruption of the police departments seem to mirror the movie as well.

    Hollywood saw it coming a quarter of a century ago.


    No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle.

    by CitizenOfEarth on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:35:21 PM PDT

  •  Albuquerque, with its recent killer-cops notoriety (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NoBlueSkies, 88kathy, Meteor Blades, koNko

    in fact HAS lapel  cams for officers.  Unfortunately, the provision of continuous, consistent recordings from every cop every shift, has NOT been made an expectation.  If the device runs out of battery, fills up its hard drive, etc. there is no real tracking or disapproval of an officer's performance (or lack thereof) in fulfilling this documentation duty.  (I have this directly from several officers in the course of serving as a Grand Juror.)

    With a missing-video-is-no-big-deal attitude by leadership, it is far from surprising that key video segments can and do turn out to be sometimes "unavailable" during investigations of excessive force.   Robust departmental policies must be created to ensure that video is always collected and reliably archived.  

    Still, the cams are good.  They didn't save James Boyd's life this year, but they did document the brutality of his shooting and spark the DOJ investigation and a court-appointed monitor.  

    I'm a big fan of the cop cams.  Not only do they document police brutality, but they provide an eloquent testimony in support of those officers who act with professionalism and restraint.  
     

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:43:15 PM PDT

  •  Oh, the IRONY! (0+ / 0-)

    Funny how the fascistic types will be the first to say "If you have nothing to hide...", but suggest they be under surveillance and it's "ZOMFG! We can't do our jobs if you're always watching us!!!!111!!!!1!" :P

    Sheeeesh - We've seen how officers can act when they're on their best behaviour when on camera (thanks, Fox!), and some don't have to make much effort to get there.  Others do, and those are the ones who most need the feedback, assuming their commanding officers care enough to be honest with them.

    Plus, it would cut down on specious charges against the officers, along with the reduction due to good behaviour.

    Win-win.

    /$0.02

  •  Jersey ID - So you could ID every cop in that line (0+ / 0-)

    Protest that works comment by nomandates Registration Table Change the culture 100% registration.

    by 88kathy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:02:11 PM PDT

  •  Meanwhile in Pakistan a libertarian wet dream i... (0+ / 0-)

    Meanwhile in Pakistan a libertarian wet dream is taking place: political parties trying to overthrow a democratically elected government http://www.dawn.com/news/1126365/islamabad-march-imran-threatens-to-storm-pm-house-unless-nawaz-steps-down

  •  What it will take is jail time for the police. (0+ / 0-)

    Until police who commit crimes go to jail for them on a regular basis there will be no change. The whole attitude of the police is "we do what we want, you do what we say (or else)." Until they see that there are consequences for their illegal actions, there will be no change.

    I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. Leo Gerard.

    by tgrshark13 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:05:32 PM PDT

  •  Wouldn't it deal a huge blow to privacy (0+ / 0-)

    Since you'd get filmed just being next to a cop? Who is going to see that video, how long is it going to be kept? Is my face going into a national searchable database?

  •  WH Petition: Mike Brown Law. Requires all state, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    county, and local police to wear a camera.

    The petition here has already surpassed the threshold for mandatory consideration by the WH.

    The plural of anecdote is NOT data

    by Dr Arcadia on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:29:43 PM PDT

  •  Tread Cautiously Citizens (0+ / 0-)

    If universal surveillance is the solution to society's ills and there are no potential side-effects, then I guess Orwell's 1984 was just fiction with no basis in fact and Dems should nominate James Clapper to primary Hillary Clinton since she triangulates on the general issue of the Surveillance State and as failed to call for Snowden's summary execution so far.

    Seriously, fellow citizens, WHO controls the information from these cameras, WHAT are the rules and WHEN did the village decide privacy was a bad thing?

    Wow, got to say I'm a bit surprised how quick Americans are to volunteer for membership in a Police State but maybe I shouldn't; a fair majority of the American public support the apparatus when the question is worded to filter-out the fascist imagery.

    Dues/Duettes ... I get the fact you can change behavior of conscious people by turning a video camera on them, but do you want the citizenry in control or the state?

    And no, I'm not a fucking Libertarian for asking this, so don't bother with that, it's nonsense.

    •  We're already surrounded by cameras... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koNko

      ...Having a few cameras that serve the purpose of cranking down cop violence and jackassery would be aiding the surveillance state more than it would be reducing bad policing? If there were no cameras watching us from various vantage points every time we outdoors or in a public or corporate building or just going to the store for Skittles or Relios, then opposition to cops having bodycams might make sense.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:58:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So please answer my simple questions. (0+ / 0-)

        I don't see how cameras worn by and controlled by cops are going to be (a) all that effective; (b) somehow less subject to abuse than the other cameras they have; (c) free of unintended consequences.

        Because, so far, the good cases are few and far between, and outweighed by negative consequences.

        But don't take my word for it, I'm just an anonymous blogger; ask the ACLU and EFF who have been working for decades on these issues and have their own reservations about how this technology gets used.

        Nothing I have read here answers my simple questions, and as a citizen of an authoritarian state, I will reserve my right to question this based on personal experience.

        By the way, London has the greatest number and highest density of surveillance cameras of any city in the world and is now adding more to their cops. They already have few public spaces that are NOT surveyed, yet they need even more because the ones they already have are, apparently, too remote and ubiquitous to be ineffective, so they need an upgrade.

        Obviously this has not caused the city to burst into flames, but it also does nothing to stop endemic crime or violence by citizens or cops, because cheap cameras create few jobs and provide no education ... bla, bla, bla.

        Now, if we a talking about cameras controlled by citizens (minus the Glassholes, LOL), that might be another case. Until they get hacked by the FBI. But I'll just suggest mobile phones with cameras are everywhere and people can use them.

        BUT ..

        By whom and how will all these tens of thousands of cameras be controlled and monitored?  And if ignored, what is the bloody point of it all?

        What the UK found is most of the cameras are installed and then ignored, so they are installing more and more. Ha ha ha. The novelty wears off and then people revert to being human, I suppose.


        "Renew London" Spy Kiosk logging mac addresses

        Seems the citizen DID object to dust bins tracking their mobile phones, but hey, maybe they just needed to give the idea more time, 'cuz all the Big Data generated could be genuinely useful, no?

        Please explain to me how this works. I seem to be too confused and simple-minded to understand how these cop cams are gonna work. I keep thinking they will use them as they see fit.

        If I'm holding the camera, and if I can stop it from being hacked of confiscated, I can see how the thing works, but if it's more and more cameras controlled by the authorities that we are trying to monitor, I think it leads to something that makes Phillip K. Dick look unimaginative.

        Is the solution really a panopticon on every corner and every badge?

        •  Corrections (0+ / 0-)

          Boy, that was long-winded. Errors corrected:

          " ... too remote and ubiquitous to be effective, so they need an upgrade. ..."

          " ... Is the solution really a virtual panopticon on every corner and every badge? ..."

          Sorry, I should be more clear.

          One great British invention was Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon, illustrated by his drawing below and by a practical example in the Presidio Modelo Prison in Cuba.


          Some wonder if we are building modern, virtual, versions of this wonderful invention to make the world safe.

          Just a question.

          No one size fits all anything, right?

          But I like my camera better.

      •  By the way (0+ / 0-)

        If I had to choose between cops with cameras or cops with guns, I suppose I would choose cops with cameras because they are less lethal.

        And that is pretty much what we have in China: no citizens and few cops with guns, but lots of cameras (but less than USA or UK, actually) and electronic ID Cards that make it really convenient to process information when the need arises.

        But I don't see the guns going away from US cops any day soon; they keep getting more and more weapons and intel apparatus, and that is why this tragedy is a watershed event that should not go to waste, to paraphrase.

        So serious questions are who controls what and what are unintended consequences.

        We can see that, particularly when it comes to an underclass, that governments often turn what is supposed to be a check on the state into a check on the citizens, and finding examples almost anywhere is shooting fish in a barrel; I know you know that is true, you tell stories about it.

        Now you want to put that power into the hands of people, right?

        So, how does it work?

        Excuse me being a persistent irritant, but these questions should be answered, and unless (or even if) you have laws designed to produce the desired outcomes, that tends not to happen, because there are plenty of clever people out there and they are not all wearing white hats.

        Frankly, what I see is an arms race, where citizens have some advantages, but should be damn careful about what they wish for.

  •  Besides confiscating cameras... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko

    ...there's the simple expediency of obscuring or not wearing their badges

    "No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks” --Mary Shelley

    by Alhambra on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:49:15 PM PDT

  •  never thought I'd EVER say this, but I think I've (0+ / 0-)

    finally found a reason to wear Google glass.

Angie in WA State, Sylv, Geenius at Wrok, mimi, PeterHug, Lipstick Liberal, willyr, Heart of the Rockies, eyeswideopen, 88kathy, susans, Wee Mama, gayntom, navajo, dksbook, Moody Loner, TexDem, CitizenOfEarth, kj in missouri, Sychotic1, defluxion10, KayCeSF, marvyt, Josiah Bartlett, xxdr zombiexx, sawgrass727, kbman, marina, Tinfoil Hat, mjd in florida, indycam, Sara R, kaliope, WisePiper, FindingMyVoice, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Kingsmeg, raptavio, cookseytalbott, koNko, smokeymonkey, AoT, KenBee, kck, blueoasis, gpoutney, JVolvo, MadMs, shaharazade, AllanTBG, markthshark, linkage, Mary Mike, jeanette0605, flumptytail, HCKAD, jayden, bobswern, jnhobbs, cville townie, fb, JDWolverton, jwinIL14, MKinTN, ChocolateChris, Senor Unoball, dadadata, Calamity Jean, petulans, BYw, ewmorr, dharmasyd, Carol in San Antonio, Denise Oliver Velez, kingfishstew, Edge PA, nocynicism, Larsstephens, herbanreleaf, smileycreek, flitedocnm, Polly Syllabic, samanthab, paradise50, Yasuragi, Publius2008, ericlewis0, Oh Mary Oh, slice, no way lack of brain, annieli, Front Toward Enemy, ban nock, slowbutsure, FarWestGirl, badscience, BarackStarObama, worldlotus, enhydra lutris, PhilJD, bakeneko, Democrats Ramshield, joanbrooker, Laurel in CA, OldDragon, Catskill Julie, Eric Nelson, David54, Joieau, 420 forever, 2thanks, belinda ridgewood, wxorknot, Glen The Plumber, wasatch, this just in, koosah, remembrance, SixSixSix, Dewstino, Alhambra, suka, duhban, CenPhx, Tronsix2, Chas 981, UnderRevision, paulex, nerafinator, Cynthia Hobgood Strauss, darleneh, NoBlueSkies

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site