A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/upshot/a-big-test-of-police-body-cameras-defies-expectations.html
352 comments
It is beyond my comprehension how the New York Times could cite a study on this without mentioning the blatant abuse of body cameras, of which anecdotal evidence like yours shows up _all the time_.
Campaign Zero have a list of best practices for police cameras. To the best of my knowledge, no police force follows them (because then they wouldn’t be able to pull stuff like this without repercussions)
I guess citizens will have to be the ones wearing body cameras.
I hear about people recording the police with their phones now and again, and it always makes me think of the balance between
1. If I have my phone on and recording, the police can seize it (ie, grab it from me). At best, I'd be able to turn it off, but it's been shown multiple times that they can force me to provide my fingerprint to unlock it.
2. If I turn my phone off (so they need my pin, which they can't force from me), I can't record.
1. If I have my phone on and recording, the police can seize it (ie, grab it from me). At best, I'd be able to turn it off, but it's been shown multiple times that they can force me to provide my fingerprint to unlock it.
2. If I turn my phone off (so they need my pin, which they can't force from me), I can't record.
I would stop using your fingerprint to unlock.
At least on my Sony/Android phone it's possible to access a subset of the camera app from the lock screen (phone locked). No fingerprint reader, and the "pin" is a passphrase.
The phone is encrypted - but the battery isn't removable, and I assume there's more than one way to get at the data as long as the phone stays on (usb/pin header access, some form of cold boot attack, kernel 0day).
I seem to recall the iPhone used to be similar wrt using the camera on a locked device - you can disable the touch id and enable a more secure pin? (although, if it's still possible to brute force the hsm, going to a "secure" number of digits isn't really practical. But six digits with three attempts before actually hardware enforced cool down should help a bit. But even at just 1 guesses / 3 seconds on average, it'd at worst take a month (15 days on average) to get into such a device, assuming an automated/robot brute force toolkit - especially with faulty tamper resistant hw).
The phone is encrypted - but the battery isn't removable, and I assume there's more than one way to get at the data as long as the phone stays on (usb/pin header access, some form of cold boot attack, kernel 0day).
I seem to recall the iPhone used to be similar wrt using the camera on a locked device - you can disable the touch id and enable a more secure pin? (although, if it's still possible to brute force the hsm, going to a "secure" number of digits isn't really practical. But six digits with three attempts before actually hardware enforced cool down should help a bit. But even at just 1 guesses / 3 seconds on average, it'd at worst take a month (15 days on average) to get into such a device, assuming an automated/robot brute force toolkit - especially with faulty tamper resistant hw).
I would love an app which started recording, while making best effort to get the video off my phone and into the cloud ASAP, perhaps sending only sound and a low quality image if bandwidth is low.
The Owncloud Android app (https://f-droid.org/packages/com.owncloud.android/) has options to automatically upload pictures and videos as they are taken. It's working well for pictures, for videos it tends to fail if they are too big but I guess that with suitably low quality settings that would be acceptable.
Good list of apps https://www.copblock.org/apps/
What's the law say about recording police?
I believe in every jurisdiction that it's been tested it's been found to be constitutionally protected.
It doesn't matter in a practical sense. How are you going to prove the LEO prevented you from recording? It's your word (as a now suspect of a crime) vs their word, a respected public servant, and their partner, who will swear by them.
Even if you do prove they stopped you from recording, so what? You don't have evidence of your interaction to implicate them. As long as they recite the magical words, that they believed they were in the right, current legal doctrine will look the other way(see Heien vs North Carolina - https://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/12/16/heien-v-north-carol... - and similar).
Even if you do prove they stopped you from recording, so what? You don't have evidence of your interaction to implicate them. As long as they recite the magical words, that they believed they were in the right, current legal doctrine will look the other way(see Heien vs North Carolina - https://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/12/16/heien-v-north-carol... - and similar).
It's not your word vs them.
You just start recording them, and then if they try to stop you, their attempt to stop you is now recorded, and hopefully in the cloud where they can't delete it.
You just start recording them, and then if they try to stop you, their attempt to stop you is now recorded, and hopefully in the cloud where they can't delete it.
Why does what the cop said matter? It sounds like a pretty wild story, so I'm not surprised someone might doubt it on first hearing about it.
Did they beat you up, refuse to help you, or something like that?
Did they beat you up, refuse to help you, or something like that?
>Did they beat you up, refuse to help you, or something like that?
I’ll explain it like this...I felt revictimized. In my estimation four officers spent their time questioning me instead of any resources attempting to locate the gunman actively getting away in my car.
The truth is even being forced to drive my attacker at gun point for approximately 25 minutes, I felt some degree of control in the sense I had some power to make a decision even as bad as all of the available options were pretty bad. At some point after exhausting everything I could think of to negotiate myself out of the situation safely (i.e. please just let me out and take my phone and wallet; I’m a lawyer maybe I can help you, you don’t need to do this), I accepted that very likely what was going on is I was being forced to drive to an isolated location where I would be shot and my body wouldn’t be found.
Accepting something like that as reality is actually empowering - and I even testified to this - I considered driving my car into a concrete median on the highway at high speed; making a move to grab the gun and fight; I considered driving my car off the shoulder of the highway down a grassy hill and trying to roll out. And these were very real possibilities and options I could have attempted thinking at least if I lived I would get medical treatment quickly if this happened on I-95 and he would likely get caught...which I felt was unlikely if I allowed the entire thing to play out in some isolated location. At the end the gunman forced me to exit the highway and I made my move when being directed to do a u-turn at an intersection.
So you have to consider I’m not trained for any of this, but still I felt somewhat in control in the sense that I could make a choice. And when I escaped I felt some degree of elation, because of all my options I ended up picking one that got me away from a gunman relatively unharmed physically considering. But then I felt instead of pursing this gunman who was making an active get away in my car there were 4 officers busy questioning me the most senior of them setting the tone for the rest by basically telling me I’m full of shit before even speaking with me. I felt more victimized than with the gunman, because the reality was I had no options, I had no recourse, and in my mind their own bias ensured this guy would safely make a get away in my car (which he did). So based on nothing more than how the one officer treated me I felt more victimized by them than the gunman, because I actually had less power.
I went from feeling I made the right choice by escaping, to thinking I did the wrong thing and that what I should have done is try to fight and take the gun...godforbid something like this ever takes place again, it is very likely I will take that option, knowing full well life isn’t some movie where the good guy always wins.
And it’s not just about me but about the next victim and how they are treated, maybe it’s a woman escaping a sexually motivated attacker and this officer asking why she is dressed so provocatively if she didn’t want it. Chilling effects are real, and telling a victim they are lying as the first words out of your mouth while showing zero interest in pursuing the suspect making an active getaway from the scene sets the tone. Then again it was this slight (perceived or not) that resulted in me locating the suspect with 24 hours, even with a location from a stolen iPad there was an initial refusal for the police to go to the location, it was me who drove to the location and confirmed my vehicle location and the gunman, and that burden really should not have been on me, I should have felt confident the police would find this guy especially when I provided them with a location from my iPad that happened to be in the car. So you tell me, did they refuse to help me?
I’ll explain it like this...I felt revictimized. In my estimation four officers spent their time questioning me instead of any resources attempting to locate the gunman actively getting away in my car.
The truth is even being forced to drive my attacker at gun point for approximately 25 minutes, I felt some degree of control in the sense I had some power to make a decision even as bad as all of the available options were pretty bad. At some point after exhausting everything I could think of to negotiate myself out of the situation safely (i.e. please just let me out and take my phone and wallet; I’m a lawyer maybe I can help you, you don’t need to do this), I accepted that very likely what was going on is I was being forced to drive to an isolated location where I would be shot and my body wouldn’t be found.
Accepting something like that as reality is actually empowering - and I even testified to this - I considered driving my car into a concrete median on the highway at high speed; making a move to grab the gun and fight; I considered driving my car off the shoulder of the highway down a grassy hill and trying to roll out. And these were very real possibilities and options I could have attempted thinking at least if I lived I would get medical treatment quickly if this happened on I-95 and he would likely get caught...which I felt was unlikely if I allowed the entire thing to play out in some isolated location. At the end the gunman forced me to exit the highway and I made my move when being directed to do a u-turn at an intersection.
So you have to consider I’m not trained for any of this, but still I felt somewhat in control in the sense that I could make a choice. And when I escaped I felt some degree of elation, because of all my options I ended up picking one that got me away from a gunman relatively unharmed physically considering. But then I felt instead of pursing this gunman who was making an active get away in my car there were 4 officers busy questioning me the most senior of them setting the tone for the rest by basically telling me I’m full of shit before even speaking with me. I felt more victimized than with the gunman, because the reality was I had no options, I had no recourse, and in my mind their own bias ensured this guy would safely make a get away in my car (which he did). So based on nothing more than how the one officer treated me I felt more victimized by them than the gunman, because I actually had less power.
I went from feeling I made the right choice by escaping, to thinking I did the wrong thing and that what I should have done is try to fight and take the gun...godforbid something like this ever takes place again, it is very likely I will take that option, knowing full well life isn’t some movie where the good guy always wins.
And it’s not just about me but about the next victim and how they are treated, maybe it’s a woman escaping a sexually motivated attacker and this officer asking why she is dressed so provocatively if she didn’t want it. Chilling effects are real, and telling a victim they are lying as the first words out of your mouth while showing zero interest in pursuing the suspect making an active getaway from the scene sets the tone. Then again it was this slight (perceived or not) that resulted in me locating the suspect with 24 hours, even with a location from a stolen iPad there was an initial refusal for the police to go to the location, it was me who drove to the location and confirmed my vehicle location and the gunman, and that burden really should not have been on me, I should have felt confident the police would find this guy especially when I provided them with a location from my iPad that happened to be in the car. So you tell me, did they refuse to help me?
Exactly, being rude and blunt right away is probably about the most efficient thing they can do. I bet 70% of the time people change their stories when confronted with that line.
>> I bet 70% of the time people change their stories when confronted with that line.
I am sure they do, that does not mean 70% of people are lying. Just means they are bullied into changing their story to appease the cops.
90% of all cases end in a plea bargain or other guilty/no-contest finding outside of a trial, do you honestly believe the police are that good, or is the legal system one big extortion racket designed to punish anyone that wants to stand up for themselves, their rights or their innocence?
Hint... the police are not that good... and thousands of innocent people are ground away by the system daily
I am sure they do, that does not mean 70% of people are lying. Just means they are bullied into changing their story to appease the cops.
90% of all cases end in a plea bargain or other guilty/no-contest finding outside of a trial, do you honestly believe the police are that good, or is the legal system one big extortion racket designed to punish anyone that wants to stand up for themselves, their rights or their innocence?
Hint... the police are not that good... and thousands of innocent people are ground away by the system daily
And of course it doesn't matter whether the story is true or false, just the the police officer coerces the person of interest to tell as story the police officer likes.
I couldn't disagree more. The police are there to gather evidence. They're effectively tainting evidence if they mistreat people or ask leading questions or the like.
You'd better believe it matters when they come after you for (say) making false statements to the police, and it's their word against yours, and the court always sides with the cops.
You'd better believe it matters when they come after you for (say) making false statements to the police, and it's their word against yours, and the court always sides with the cops.
This discussion about what police tactics work best very likely contain zero actual cops, but several people with certain knowledge.
On that note, I found the book 400 Things Cops Know - written by an actual Sergeant - to be a pretty good read, reasonably informative and occasionally surprisingly candid.
Ordered a copy. Thanx!
It turns out that the best way to gather evidence isn't actually polite deference to every wild story you hear!
I don't understand your point at all about "tainting evidence" and how that could possibly follow from brusque questioning.
I don't understand your point at all about "tainting evidence" and how that could possibly follow from brusque questioning.
"Brusque questioning" will obviously be applied completely subjective.
Once you start deferring to police officers' immediate judgement, the legal process is tainted to amplify every single stereotype police officers hold.
White victims will obviously be treated with more deference than blacks, Spanish-speaking people will all be assumed to be illegal immigrants etc.
So the young man accused of something will be "brusquely questioned" within the first minutes and confess to the crime. While the old woman is treated with deference, has a chance to talk to a lawyer, and never gets convicted.
And the worst thing is the spiral, self-amplifying nature: start like that, and the sort of people already suspect will be the only ones actually being charged with crimes and convicted, which will reinforce all the ideas the process started out with.
Once you start deferring to police officers' immediate judgement, the legal process is tainted to amplify every single stereotype police officers hold.
White victims will obviously be treated with more deference than blacks, Spanish-speaking people will all be assumed to be illegal immigrants etc.
So the young man accused of something will be "brusquely questioned" within the first minutes and confess to the crime. While the old woman is treated with deference, has a chance to talk to a lawyer, and never gets convicted.
And the worst thing is the spiral, self-amplifying nature: start like that, and the sort of people already suspect will be the only ones actually being charged with crimes and convicted, which will reinforce all the ideas the process started out with.
> Why does what the cop said matter?
One reason is that the police department thought it mattered.
One reason is that the police department thought it mattered.
If you're still interested in doing research, you could potentially do a foia request for the communications of the people involved in redaction.
If you're trying to change officer behavior I suggest you start with training manuals and procedures. Then move on to actually train officers for a few years before putting them on the street.
But yeah, it's expensive, so it's more convenient for Americans to be tough on crime.
The fix here is likely political... body cams are a desperate attempt to make things a tiny bit better...
But yeah, it's expensive, so it's more convenient for Americans to be tough on crime.
The fix here is likely political... body cams are a desperate attempt to make things a tiny bit better...
I'm sorry for what happen to you. It sounds like quite the daring escape and I'm impressed by your courage to follow through on it.
You're a real life action hero for escaping a gun man in a moving vehicle!
You're a real life action hero for escaping a gun man in a moving vehicle!
I'm just curious what their legal justification is for redacting those portions of the video. There must be some pretext, right? Otherwise you could sue with evidence in hand.
Is it that this constitutes interrogation tactics? I know in other cases police have redacted tactics on the premise it would reduce their effectiveness.
Is it that this constitutes interrogation tactics? I know in other cases police have redacted tactics on the premise it would reduce their effectiveness.
Force all videos to be streamed live publicly but locked under encryption and the key would only be automatically released afterwards with a smart contract e.g. on court orders or request
Edit: Can someone explain why this comment is being downvoted?
With meaningful regulation to prevent outrageous crap like this!
Ideally the camera streams would be maintained by an independent, non-commercial body, with clear tenets, written with privacy in mind.
Ideally the camera streams would be maintained by an independent, non-commercial body, with clear tenets, written with privacy in mind.
If they won't help recover your ipad, can you connect that as damages and somehow sue for the redacted parts of the tape?
While cameras can fail, every incident should be heavily investigated. Redacted videos is beyond absurd outside of special circumstances.
What is the redaction supposed to be used for?
It's supposed to protect the privacy of people in the video, e.g. recordings in bathrooms, bystanders, etc.
Automatically upload footage to something like the IPFS. Blockchain that shit, immutable.
Fixing this will have to be the next step. The first step was getting the body cams.
Also, you could probably file a suit to get the unredacted video, and you could make a big stink about this. That's how you get to the next step.
Also, you could probably file a suit to get the unredacted video, and you could make a big stink about this. That's how you get to the next step.
The body cams need to serialize their stream to a special satellite or cell provider, and a chain of auditable custody needs to be preserved at multiple data centers. Police cannot be the masters of their own footage. It needs to exist beyond bribery, lust and international intimidation. It needs to be out of their hands and into a web of trust, as soon as the photons hit the sensors.
Then it comes down to jamming, tampering, malfunction, sabotage, and any misbehavior that otherwise prevents useful recordings, since we’re talking about wearables that can be covered, discarded and left behind, even if thy can’t be turned off. But if it does get recorded, it needs to get locked up tighter than handcuffs.
That video needs to dust off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
Then it comes down to jamming, tampering, malfunction, sabotage, and any misbehavior that otherwise prevents useful recordings, since we’re talking about wearables that can be covered, discarded and left behind, even if thy can’t be turned off. But if it does get recorded, it needs to get locked up tighter than handcuffs.
That video needs to dust off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
We just need to establish a legal precept that if the body cam footage isn't there to corroborate the cops' story, we assume the worst and they get held accountable for anything a plaintiff is able to plausibly allege. Under that scenario, most cops would become the biggest advocates for e.g., redundancies, backups and transparency.
This seems to abolish the right to be "innocent until proven guilty". It's always possible to allege a crime that no one can prove didn't happen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot), so without a presumption of innocence, the system essentially puts the accused at the mercy of the accuser.
I was actually thinking of it as an extension of the presumption of innocence on behalf of the citizenry and keeping the burden of proof on the government as a check against it's powers. Cops are citizens too but there is some level of surrender of your individual rights e.g., when you join the military. It'd be similar to that.
Another thought is the panopticon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon . You don't necessarily need to stream and record every cop's cam, just randomize it without indicating to the cops who's getting recorded or when.
Another thought is the panopticon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon . You don't necessarily need to stream and record every cop's cam, just randomize it without indicating to the cops who's getting recorded or when.
Given there aren't a lot of citizens randomly stopping officers to accuse them of crimes... I don't see a problem. The ISSUE right now is exactly what you've described - officers accusing citizens of crimes they didn't commit without proof beyond "their word".
As someone who has been falsely accused by an officer (fortunately a minor traffic violation that I was able to make go away by paying a small fine), I've lost any faith that officers are there to serve their constituents.
As someone who has been falsely accused by an officer (fortunately a minor traffic violation that I was able to make go away by paying a small fine), I've lost any faith that officers are there to serve their constituents.
Ive heard there are a lot of suspects accusing officers but body cams reduce the average amount of those accusations.
I've also been a victim of this. The police even held a mock-trial for me, with one acting as judge while his fellow officer and I both presented our sides of the story. I won't make assumptions about the likelihood of them ever actually telling another fellow officer they agree with a defendant, but it definitely did not happen in my case. Added insult to injury and a bit of a resentment towards the whole process for me and not much else.
You are misapplying the right. That principle was devised explicitly to protect citizens from powerful entities.
That principle is not in contradiction with the principle that power must be held accountable.
Historically, that's why public figures are called "public" in opposition to "private".
That principle is not in contradiction with the principle that power must be held accountable.
Historically, that's why public figures are called "public" in opposition to "private".
Police need to be held to a higher standard than citizens. Currently, they're held to a ludicrously lower one. That has obvious, demonstrable consequences.
Not really, there isn't a presumption of guilt because first you must establish spoliation. Once it has been established that the video record is incomplete, it must be the duty of the police to provide evidence of the technical failing that allowed it to happen to clear them of wrongdoing. After all, the evidence was in their care. Even if it was simply negligence and not malice.
A much more feasible option would be to directly make it a law that camera footage must be producible on request, much like tax receipts, driver's insurance, transit passes and other such documents.
There would still be lots of details to get right, but at least it wouldn't violate the basic underlying principles of our legal system.
There would still be lots of details to get right, but at least it wouldn't violate the basic underlying principles of our legal system.
If the police are given any sort of beneficial presumption, either formally or informally, at least that presumption should be discarded in cases in which body cam footage turns up missing.
Take away their immunity if they can't produce the videos and try them as citizens. I can't recall the specific immunity but it's something like special immunity or classified immunity for police officers when on patrol.
Yeah, dropping "the assumption of regularity" is probably better.
But then this comes down to a jury, and most Americans still seem to trust their police officers. Just saying..
But then this comes down to a jury, and most Americans still seem to trust their police officers. Just saying..
Then it sounds like there is a strong incentive to keep that camera on!
When cops' word weighs more than yours in a court of law, this requires an equivalent check against that power by only making it weigh that much when there is corroborating evidence (i.e., video proof).
When cops' word weighs more than yours in a court of law, this requires an equivalent check against that power by only making it weigh that much when there is corroborating evidence (i.e., video proof).
While you are completely correct, it would force any rational being to make sure not only that they are wearing a camera, but that it is working too.
I know this won't be a popular comment but it never surprises me that this attitude that police should be guilty until proven innocent arrises. It seems to be the default setting. Just like the way everyone hates the police until they need them.
Everything is at some point the fault of the police. It seems like everyone wants the police to do only what they want them to and to be punished if the police do something different.
Now I don't come from the US so can't comment on the problems with the police there and I don't know how the police there are funded but I know from my country that some of the "solutions" stated to hold the police to account would bankrupt the police here, but then I suppose that's the fault of the police as well.
I'm all for bodycams though because at the end of the day when a fabricated complaint comes in (my experience is most of them are) then these can be easily dismissed and hopefully those people actually held to account.
Everything is at some point the fault of the police. It seems like everyone wants the police to do only what they want them to and to be punished if the police do something different.
Now I don't come from the US so can't comment on the problems with the police there and I don't know how the police there are funded but I know from my country that some of the "solutions" stated to hold the police to account would bankrupt the police here, but then I suppose that's the fault of the police as well.
I'm all for bodycams though because at the end of the day when a fabricated complaint comes in (my experience is most of them are) then these can be easily dismissed and hopefully those people actually held to account.
I can't really believe there's a straight up choice between non-corrupt police and bankrupt police departments. It is true that US police seem to funded in ways that create incentives to corruption. An ideological commitment to low taxes means institutions like the police need to find other sources of revenue. This leads to a proliferation of regulations and drug and driving laws that can be used to impose fines, systems like civil forfeiture, and reliance on private "donations".
In the long term, this leads to a fundamentally adversarial and extractive relationship between the police and the populace, and the situation right now where police are widely hated, or at least distrusted, by significant sections of the population.
The solution to all of this is to break this extractive relationship: To prevent the police from profiting from the enforcement of some laws over others, or from seizing property only to sell it for their own gain. And, yes, to accept a rate of general taxation and redistribution that can be used to fund the institutions of a modern state. So long as the US continues to pursue the current tax model, the same shortfalls and perverse incentives to find alternative sources of revenue with exist, leading to the same poor outcomes in so many areas of government.
In the long term, this leads to a fundamentally adversarial and extractive relationship between the police and the populace, and the situation right now where police are widely hated, or at least distrusted, by significant sections of the population.
The solution to all of this is to break this extractive relationship: To prevent the police from profiting from the enforcement of some laws over others, or from seizing property only to sell it for their own gain. And, yes, to accept a rate of general taxation and redistribution that can be used to fund the institutions of a modern state. So long as the US continues to pursue the current tax model, the same shortfalls and perverse incentives to find alternative sources of revenue with exist, leading to the same poor outcomes in so many areas of government.
The US is not a monolithic entity, and various states handle civil asset forfeiture differently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
Many places in the US don't have these problems, so there is nothing to solve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
Many places in the US don't have these problems, so there is nothing to solve.
Ok so hunger isn't a problem because people in Europe are generally well-fed? This follows the same line of reasoning as the one you are using now.
My point was that localities differ greatly across the US (and Europe for that matter), and should be taken care of at a local level rather than from the centralized location of DC. I don't want to live in a police state, so I choose to live in a small town that doesn't have the issues that our big cities have.
Like I say I can't comment on the US system regards it's policing practices, from the outside looking in it all seems open to abuse. Where I come from the government funds the police, they don't make any profit from the likes of tickets etc.
Currently the police are savagely being under funded as are all public sectors and crime is on the rise but the difference between the police and other public services is that people seem to understand why the other public services are not performing as good as they were, but it's the fault to the police they aren't performing as good.
Like I said I would love to see bodycams on all police but as with every public body ICT project it will be mismanaged and cost way more than it needs to. Currently the police where I am can't afford it.
Currently the police are savagely being under funded as are all public sectors and crime is on the rise but the difference between the police and other public services is that people seem to understand why the other public services are not performing as good as they were, but it's the fault to the police they aren't performing as good.
Like I said I would love to see bodycams on all police but as with every public body ICT project it will be mismanaged and cost way more than it needs to. Currently the police where I am can't afford it.
We dont hate the police, but have no method to keep them accountable and awful behavior has been proven endemic in police forces around the country.
Why is it hateful to the police to actually ask for their interactions? As the modern authoritarian state asks its citizens, what do you have to hide?
Why is it hateful to the police to actually ask for their interactions? As the modern authoritarian state asks its citizens, what do you have to hide?
Well like I said I'm not from the US and have no answers to a system that seems completely and obviously open to abuse. I'm always puzzled why it's the way it is in the US, the whole justice system seems like a farce especially the way the courts work.
I'm all from transparency, not only does it keep the cops right but it also means cops are safe from fabricated complaints they are subject to. I just find some of the ideas here about how to do this ridiculous from a reality perspective. And to suggest that the police should be presumed guilty it actually worse than ridiculous.
I'm all from transparency, not only does it keep the cops right but it also means cops are safe from fabricated complaints they are subject to. I just find some of the ideas here about how to do this ridiculous from a reality perspective. And to suggest that the police should be presumed guilty it actually worse than ridiculous.
Which country?
The problem is that we are raising expectations for police behavior and are unwilling to recruit and pay for that kind of staffing.
It seems people want police to be johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to cracking down on crime immediately while simultaneously exercising extreme discretion and self-control when it comes to respecting legal rights and responsibilities.
I'm not sure who could even fulfill those kinds of expectations but it would be someone like a grizzled experienced prosecutor who has defense lawyer experience who is in good physical condition and is physically well trained.
I doubt the pool of people who meet those criteria are willing to work for police salaries.
It seems people want police to be johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to cracking down on crime immediately while simultaneously exercising extreme discretion and self-control when it comes to respecting legal rights and responsibilities.
I'm not sure who could even fulfill those kinds of expectations but it would be someone like a grizzled experienced prosecutor who has defense lawyer experience who is in good physical condition and is physically well trained.
I doubt the pool of people who meet those criteria are willing to work for police salaries.
> serialize their stream special satellite cell provider chain auditable custody preserved multiple data centers bribery lust international intimidation web of trust photons sensors jamming tampering malfunction sabotage misbehavior recordings wearables turned off recorded
You're trying to solve a legal problem with technology. That's dangerous, because it's hard upper limit is the technology's long-term security. Even worse, it's real upper limit is the min(technology, law)
You're trying to solve a legal problem with technology. That's dangerous, because it's hard upper limit is the technology's long-term security. Even worse, it's real upper limit is the min(technology, law)
I think it would be enough if they encrypted the video contents and stored in blocks out of order, ideally I would also have it streamed but let's be realistic about bandwidth and availability requirements for that. In the end there will always be significant on device storage.
Make sure that the people who are responsible for the decryption and delivery of the content have incitement that the result is useful.
Make sure that the people who are responsible for the decryption and delivery of the content have incitement that the result is useful.
> Fixing this will have to be the next step.
Depends really. Moving to a different country would be my next step personally.
Depends really. Moving to a different country would be my next step personally.
> The first step was getting the body cams
Nonsense. Cameras will be always used to benefit only the police as long as they control them: it's easy to cherry-pick what to record and, later on, what to release. It's easy to take off a camera altogether.
You need 3rd parties (e.g. bystanders) to be able to record what's happening and stream it it safe storage in real time.
Nonsense. Cameras will be always used to benefit only the police as long as they control them: it's easy to cherry-pick what to record and, later on, what to release. It's easy to take off a camera altogether.
You need 3rd parties (e.g. bystanders) to be able to record what's happening and stream it it safe storage in real time.
Nonsense. Cameras will be always used to benefit only the police as long as they control them: it's easy to cherry-pick what to record and, later on, what to release. It's easy to take off a camera altogether. You need 3rd parties (e.g. bystanders) to be able to record what's happening and stream it it safe storage in real time.
It's sad that you're being downvoted for saying this, because it's true. As long as police are the only ones legally or practically empowered to film these encounters, they will be the ones empowered to control the narrative.
The right of citizens to film police encounters without harassment or threats is imperative.
It's sad that you're being downvoted for saying this, because it's true. As long as police are the only ones legally or practically empowered to film these encounters, they will be the ones empowered to control the narrative.
The right of citizens to film police encounters without harassment or threats is imperative.
I would be shocked if the unredacted video still exists.
In many (most?) US jurisdictions, bodycam video is cloud-hosted by Taser.[0]
I don't have direct experience, but I'd bet Taser doesn't let podunk police departments really "erase" video. And given the volume, you'd think it's got to be built on AWS or another big cloud provider, with pretty good forensic tools.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/business/taser-internatio...
I don't have direct experience, but I'd bet Taser doesn't let podunk police departments really "erase" video. And given the volume, you'd think it's got to be built on AWS or another big cloud provider, with pretty good forensic tools.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/business/taser-internatio...
>I don't have direct experience, but I'd bet Taser doesn't let podunk police departments really "erase" video.
The NYTimes article you posted hints at an uncomfortably cozy relationship between Taser, law enforcement and local governments...
The NYTimes article you posted hints at an uncomfortably cozy relationship between Taser, law enforcement and local governments...
Yet as Taser works to sell cameras and software to more departments,
it is coming under fire for questionable business practices. In some
instances, it has paid police chiefs to travel to Taser conferences.
In other cases, chiefs who have bought Taser products have joined
the company as consultants shortly after leaving public service.
And several cities have awarded contracts to Taser without
competitive bidding.
Taser also operates a legal-defense-aid operation for police officers who use Tasers to break the law.
I'm gonna need a source for that.
Oh, don't think I'm suggesting they're impartial stewards. But they should have some incentive not to be the co-defendant in every police assault case where the video goes missing.
It is probably easy for a records clerk to export redacted video, but should be hard for them to really delete video, or tamper without leaving a trail.
Some customers might justify the risk, I suppose. But if they were to regularly winkwink at cops deleting video evidence, they'd get walloped.
It is probably easy for a records clerk to export redacted video, but should be hard for them to really delete video, or tamper without leaving a trail.
Some customers might justify the risk, I suppose. But if they were to regularly winkwink at cops deleting video evidence, they'd get walloped.
> I don't have direct experience, but I'd bet Taser doesn't let podunk police departments really "erase" video.
They will if they want to keep getting contracts.
They will if they want to keep getting contracts.
Maybe once. But if that's a repeating problem that the legal system can't solve, it'd be a symptom of something so fundamentally broken it really makes police behaviour the least of our problems.
It would be illegal otherwise, wouldn't it? Redaction of evidence
You would have to prove a) that it was evidence of a crime, and b) the police had reason to believe or know it was such.
In the absence of laws requiring full transparency and access to body cam footage, the body cams are just likely to be abused.
In the absence of laws requiring full transparency and access to body cam footage, the body cams are just likely to be abused.
In contrast, full transparency of body cam footage could and would compromise ongoing investigations and identities of people in witness protection and so on. So full transparency in private/closed court or redacted versions showing only 'relevant' information in public/open court. Maybe full transparency after the information in the video becomes irrelevant, but micromanaging a hude amount of body cam footage would prove to be quite difficult.
>You would have to prove a) that it was evidence of a crime, and b) the police had reason to believe or know it was such.
Missing audio and a big "redacted" sticker is a pretty damning evidence that "Something" was removed. IF there was nothing to hide, why did they remove it?
Missing audio and a big "redacted" sticker is a pretty damning evidence that "Something" was removed. IF there was nothing to hide, why did they remove it?
That doesn’t sound right. My neighbor is accused of a crime, and upon hearing that, I destroy all the evidence that would exonerate them. That doesn’t count as obstruction of justice / destruction of evidence?
Your neighbour is suspected of brutally murdering their parents in his backyard. One Sunday afternoon, you maw their lawn along with yours because they're really old and it really isn't that much work once you're at it anyway.
In the process, you destroy the evidence exonerating them, i. e. footprints of shoes much smaller than theirs.
Obstruction of justice? Nope.
Now imagine the same thing happened. Except that this time, you include their lawn not just because you always do, but to get them thrown in jail. You're really tired of doing all these chores for them, and it's time for new neighbours.
Obstruction of justice? Yep.
Intend matters.
In the process, you destroy the evidence exonerating them, i. e. footprints of shoes much smaller than theirs.
Obstruction of justice? Nope.
Now imagine the same thing happened. Except that this time, you include their lawn not just because you always do, but to get them thrown in jail. You're really tired of doing all these chores for them, and it's time for new neighbours.
Obstruction of justice? Yep.
Intend matters.
It doesn't have to be evidence of a crime. It can be evidence of policy violations.
(I'm not American)
Smells like deception, can't you sue? You could in Europe.
Yes, you always can. You'd probably have to make a claim of some kind of injury and it would likely involve a significant time investment if not also money. To what end? It's too easy not to follow through on these things.
How was the case handled?
Did they find the gunman?
Was he charged?
I ask because, honestly, I don't think I care what they police say when they first walk up as long as they solve the crime, catch the perpetrator.
The problem we have nowadays is that we get to see "how the (justice system) sausage is made" a lot more than we used to. And it's disturbing. But those guys out there with uniforms on are the ones trying to survive every day and bring criminals to justice. It's easy to be an armchair quarterback.
I ask because, honestly, I don't think I care what they police say when they first walk up as long as they solve the crime, catch the perpetrator.
The problem we have nowadays is that we get to see "how the (justice system) sausage is made" a lot more than we used to. And it's disturbing. But those guys out there with uniforms on are the ones trying to survive every day and bring criminals to justice. It's easy to be an armchair quarterback.
> It's easy to be an armchair quarterback.
I don't know how to be an orthopedic surgeon. The closest thing I've had to medical training was a first aid and CPR class. What I do know is that if an orthopedic surgeon, upon first seeing an overweight patient complaining of hip pain says "lay off the cheeseburgers and your hip will be fine, you fat slob", that doctor is doing a bad job. Not only is it hostile and rude, it fails to attempt to adequately understand the situation before rushing to judgement.
I do know a little about how to be a police officer. I went to school for it, but decided that wasn't what I want to do with my life. Accusing a complainant of lying right off the bat without any investigation when the complaint is anything more believable than an alien abduction, then having the evidence of your rudeness deleted is not how to be a good cop. I don't think it really takes much training or experience to reach that conclusion.
I don't know how to be an orthopedic surgeon. The closest thing I've had to medical training was a first aid and CPR class. What I do know is that if an orthopedic surgeon, upon first seeing an overweight patient complaining of hip pain says "lay off the cheeseburgers and your hip will be fine, you fat slob", that doctor is doing a bad job. Not only is it hostile and rude, it fails to attempt to adequately understand the situation before rushing to judgement.
I do know a little about how to be a police officer. I went to school for it, but decided that wasn't what I want to do with my life. Accusing a complainant of lying right off the bat without any investigation when the complaint is anything more believable than an alien abduction, then having the evidence of your rudeness deleted is not how to be a good cop. I don't think it really takes much training or experience to reach that conclusion.
> I went to school for it, but decided that wasn't what I want to do with my life.
Interesting, because most police officers don't need to go to school for it to get the job, right?
Interesting, because most police officers don't need to go to school for it to get the job, right?
> Interesting, because most police officers don't need to go to school for it to get the job, right?
It's usually not a minimum requirement, but a degree, usually in criminal justice, can be a significant competitive advantage in applications.
You don't strictly need to go to school to be a professional programmer, either, but people still go to school for it.
It's usually not a minimum requirement, but a degree, usually in criminal justice, can be a significant competitive advantage in applications.
You don't strictly need to go to school to be a professional programmer, either, but people still go to school for it.
> It's easy to be an armchair quarterback.
If my arm was made out of a chair, I'd think I'd have difficulty throwing the ball to a wide receiver.
If my arm was made out of a chair, I'd think I'd have difficulty throwing the ball to a wide receiver.
But those guys out there with uniforms on are the ones trying to survive every day
Yeah, no. It's not that dangerous.
Yeah, no. It's not that dangerous.
Not even in the top ten. Less dangerous than grounds maintenance worker.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/28/chart...
As far as straight up getting murdered, it's in the top 2, but #1 taxi drivers are murdered at almost 3x the rate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/28/chart...
As far as straight up getting murdered, it's in the top 2, but #1 taxi drivers are murdered at almost 3x the rate.
Statistics are deceiving. No one has it in for grounds maintenance workers and taxi drivers and they typically don't go looking for trouble.
For policeman it's their job to go to dangerous places.
For policeman it's their job to go to dangerous places.
>Statistics are deceiving.
Yes, in this example, I would imagine non-government job injuries are probably under reported.
>No one has it in for ... taxi drivers
Apparently they do. They get murdered almost 3x as often per capita as police officers. Maybe it's their money they're after.
>For policeman it's their job to go to dangerous places.
The same can be said for taxi drivers, delivery drivers, postal service, electric linemen, crab fishermen, loggers, proctologists ...
Yes, in this example, I would imagine non-government job injuries are probably under reported.
>No one has it in for ... taxi drivers
Apparently they do. They get murdered almost 3x as often per capita as police officers. Maybe it's their money they're after.
>For policeman it's their job to go to dangerous places.
The same can be said for taxi drivers, delivery drivers, postal service, electric linemen, crab fishermen, loggers, proctologists ...
What about these particular statistics is deceiving? You can't just dismiss hard data without explanation. Why would your subjective impression of danger be more accurate than these numbers?
I would say it's misleading because it makes people think it's "not that dangerous" to be a policeman. While at the same time not presenting the obvious existence of things that "downplay" that statistic. I.e. That policemen are more often than not armed and able to protect themselves. We at least need to have additional data to make any conclusions about it. Not just the plain "deaths per profession" statistic.
If you look at the article I linked, the main statistic is injuries per profession. The actual deaths per profession has police as #2. Injuries per profession, the police is not even in the top 10. It depends on how you define dangerous.
It boils down to, I guess police is a dangerous profession, but certainly not in the extreme as shown by the existence of more dangerous professions. Also, being dangerous profession certainly doesn't excuse other types of workers to blatantly use deadly force because they are scared of their profession, and it shouldn't be an excuse for police to do the same. Yet, here we are, in a thread talking about police misconduct, and someone comes up with "but their jobs are dangerous," as if it should stand as an excuse for misconduct. It does not.
It boils down to, I guess police is a dangerous profession, but certainly not in the extreme as shown by the existence of more dangerous professions. Also, being dangerous profession certainly doesn't excuse other types of workers to blatantly use deadly force because they are scared of their profession, and it shouldn't be an excuse for police to do the same. Yet, here we are, in a thread talking about police misconduct, and someone comes up with "but their jobs are dangerous," as if it should stand as an excuse for misconduct. It does not.
Cuts both ways: Considering how non-US police operate, often without being armed, and trained to deescalate tense situations, and the outcomes they produce, it seems as likely if not more likely that disarming many US police would result is fewer dead cops and fewer dead people in general.
It's easy to be an armchair quarterback.
I hear this every time someone with a difficult job has it pointed out to them that they're doing it badly. They don't even pretend that somehow makes it acceptable to do the job badly; I honestly don't know what effect saying it is supposed to have.
I hear this every time someone with a difficult job has it pointed out to them that they're doing it badly. They don't even pretend that somehow makes it acceptable to do the job badly; I honestly don't know what effect saying it is supposed to have.
It's an ad hominem attempt to deflect attention back at the attacker. Being wrong is hard to deal with, so you change the subject. It is a fairly subconscious reaction.
It's a recognition that there are complications beyond the simplistic picture one can get without personal experience. This often includes time, budget, and policy constraints the individual has no control over.
Except that there are many examples of police that do their jobs very well. I'm not sure why it has to be a mystery what standard police should be held to.
If airline pilots crashed half of their flights we would be right to criticize them. Having a hard job is no excuse for doing it poorly.
And if police catastrophically fail half their interactions, we should criticize them, too.
We only end up discussing the tiny fraction of police cases where things go badly.
We only end up discussing the tiny fraction of police cases where things go badly.
What percentage of airline crashes is acceptable? What percentage of police abuses of power is acceptable? Half was a made up number. The point is we are right to hold the police to a high standard and demand solutions when they fail in their duties.
Yes. And when an airline crash occurs, we don't just say, "it's because the pilot is a horrible person", or worse, "all pilots are horrible people." We analyze what went wrong and what we can do better, then we engineer the system to accommodate human weakness and prevent damage from human error.
It's easy to be an armchair pilot, but usually crashes are caused by more complex issues.
It's easy to be an armchair pilot, but usually crashes are caused by more complex issues.
Yes airplane crashes are complex, that's painfully obvious. In the case of an airline crash we don't say "well flying is complicated this is bound to happen" or otherwise make excuses for the pilot.
If we were as diligent with our police forces as we are with commercial airlines we wouldn't have as many bad cops.
If we were as diligent with our police forces as we are with commercial airlines we wouldn't have as many bad cops.
I feel being shocked at how this person was treated is not just "armchair quarterbacking". Given the power and trust we place in police, I don't feel it's unreasonable to expect they treat people with respect.
... and that they're punished pretty severely when they betray that trust.
They are? I have been following police abuse for nearly 15 years... I do not see any evidence of that
I think -- but am not certain, not being the GP -- that's their point: they don't see it happening, but think that a reasonable person would expect it.
You are correct. I meant the ellipses to indicate a continuation of the sentence, and if you put it together you get this:
"Given the power and trust we place in police, I don't feel it's unreasonable to expect they treat people with respect and that they're punished pretty severely when they betray that trust."
"Given the power and trust we place in police, I don't feel it's unreasonable to expect they treat people with respect and that they're punished pretty severely when they betray that trust."
I think gozur88 is following on the previous statement "I don't feel it's unreasonable to expect..."
Sometimes.
Here is what happened...
The next morning I get a call from the detective in the county to the South confirming he obtained video from the gas station where this all originated (the defendant approaching me while I’m pumping gas).
Next I get a notification from Apple my iPad has been found, which I placed in lost/stolen mode. I call the detective who doesn’t answer his phone and then the police station in the county where I escaped and my iPad was located. Dispatch informed me they would not go to the address provided by Apple to look for the defendant, my car or iPad until I drove back up to that county and met with the police.
I drove back to the county and met with two police officers who drove to the address (only 1.5 miles from the police station) but they did not see my vehicle, and apparently there was no way they would get a warrant to search the domicile for my iPad and they wouldn’t bother knocking to see if the suspect was there.
Unconvinced I worked up the nerve to drive by the property myself...I’ll be damned if I didn’t see my car driving up and down the streets of this neighborhood. I did my best to tail the car until it parked 1 house away from the address provided by Apple, and watched as the defendant got out of my car walked into the the street as I drove past. Once again I called 911 and plead they come back out to the address while I waited a few blocks away.
Once I saw a police car enter the neighborhood I followed until we arrived at my car which had already been relocated about a block away from where I saw it park and I drove past the defendant. On scene an officer was questioning 2 individuals on the front porch of the house where my car was parked and the defendant was standing on the sidewalk about 5 feet from my car. I basically yelled officer that’s the man who kidnapped me with a gun and car jacked me. He was handcuffed and taken into custody.
Shortly after I was asked to appear at the police station where I ended up being questioned and accused of trying to buy “the hard stuff”...I had to ask, apparently that’s crack. And this was the same detective who already obtained video of the gas station corroborating my entire story, I explained I was an attorney that I had just run 18 miles on the morning I was kidnapped (showed my run keeper app and everything) and otherwise I wasn’t celebrating my 18 mile run with crack. Almost immediately I was told I can go, of course I asked if he would get a warrant to recover my iPad and more important look for the gun, and I was told “no, those kinds of resources don’t exist.”
The defendant was arrested on Sunday, charged with grand theft of an auto and bonded out on Monday. Not until the “State Attorney Hearing” a few weeks later where the State attoney confirmed she had 2 prior cases against this guy where with similar facts: he stole a car in the county to the South and the cars were recovered in the county to the North, did I finally feel vindicated. Then, 1 week later his bond was revoked and the real charges came including assault with a deadly weapon and kidnapping with a fire arm.
As to it being easy to be a armchair quarterback, I wouldn’t know but I’ll take your word for it.
Edit: deleted link to the public record of the case
The next morning I get a call from the detective in the county to the South confirming he obtained video from the gas station where this all originated (the defendant approaching me while I’m pumping gas).
Next I get a notification from Apple my iPad has been found, which I placed in lost/stolen mode. I call the detective who doesn’t answer his phone and then the police station in the county where I escaped and my iPad was located. Dispatch informed me they would not go to the address provided by Apple to look for the defendant, my car or iPad until I drove back up to that county and met with the police.
I drove back to the county and met with two police officers who drove to the address (only 1.5 miles from the police station) but they did not see my vehicle, and apparently there was no way they would get a warrant to search the domicile for my iPad and they wouldn’t bother knocking to see if the suspect was there.
Unconvinced I worked up the nerve to drive by the property myself...I’ll be damned if I didn’t see my car driving up and down the streets of this neighborhood. I did my best to tail the car until it parked 1 house away from the address provided by Apple, and watched as the defendant got out of my car walked into the the street as I drove past. Once again I called 911 and plead they come back out to the address while I waited a few blocks away.
Once I saw a police car enter the neighborhood I followed until we arrived at my car which had already been relocated about a block away from where I saw it park and I drove past the defendant. On scene an officer was questioning 2 individuals on the front porch of the house where my car was parked and the defendant was standing on the sidewalk about 5 feet from my car. I basically yelled officer that’s the man who kidnapped me with a gun and car jacked me. He was handcuffed and taken into custody.
Shortly after I was asked to appear at the police station where I ended up being questioned and accused of trying to buy “the hard stuff”...I had to ask, apparently that’s crack. And this was the same detective who already obtained video of the gas station corroborating my entire story, I explained I was an attorney that I had just run 18 miles on the morning I was kidnapped (showed my run keeper app and everything) and otherwise I wasn’t celebrating my 18 mile run with crack. Almost immediately I was told I can go, of course I asked if he would get a warrant to recover my iPad and more important look for the gun, and I was told “no, those kinds of resources don’t exist.”
The defendant was arrested on Sunday, charged with grand theft of an auto and bonded out on Monday. Not until the “State Attorney Hearing” a few weeks later where the State attoney confirmed she had 2 prior cases against this guy where with similar facts: he stole a car in the county to the South and the cars were recovered in the county to the North, did I finally feel vindicated. Then, 1 week later his bond was revoked and the real charges came including assault with a deadly weapon and kidnapping with a fire arm.
As to it being easy to be a armchair quarterback, I wouldn’t know but I’ll take your word for it.
Edit: deleted link to the public record of the case
Damn, that's terrible. I don't even get the police's implication here-- If you're trying to buy illegal drugs, you DESERVE to be carjacked, and furthermore they shouldn't try to press charges on the carjacker until it's proven that they weren't trying to sell you illegal drugs? The mind boggles.
>> I don't even get the police's implication here-- If you're trying to buy illegal drugs, you DESERVE to be carjacked,
I dont know about "deserved" but if they can make it a drug case then they can keep the car, the ipad, and probably steal err "seize" more property from the victim under civil asset forfeiture
Further they can use that statistic to point to an increase in "drug activity" in the county opening up the dept for grants from the DEA and other federal programs under the failed War on Drugs
A simple car jacking they get no money for. Violent crime they get no money for
Drugs is where the money is
I dont know about "deserved" but if they can make it a drug case then they can keep the car, the ipad, and probably steal err "seize" more property from the victim under civil asset forfeiture
Further they can use that statistic to point to an increase in "drug activity" in the county opening up the dept for grants from the DEA and other federal programs under the failed War on Drugs
A simple car jacking they get no money for. Violent crime they get no money for
Drugs is where the money is
sigh I wish you weren't right, but that's a good point.
[deleted]
Sounds like you should move if your PD department is that terrible.
And I'm being serious. If it's that big of a problem for you, and you're getting robbed at gunpoint, GET THE CRAP OUT OF THERE.
And I'm being serious. If it's that big of a problem for you, and you're getting robbed at gunpoint, GET THE CRAP OUT OF THERE.
Every police department is that terrible.
Mine is not. So it's sad that you feel that way.
Mine just sent a guy on ten day suspension WITHOUT PAY for getting mad at his kids football game and throwing a helmet. He was off-duty and still reflected poorly on the profession and his department so BAM, 10 days without pay.
It even made the news because so many people care about it.
Contrast that with whatever cesspool you're stuck living in, and once again, I suggest: You should probably move. Unless you're just exagerating and you're not actually in fear of injustice. But if your story is true, you should be.
Because if you think every police department is like that, then you're either listening to non-stop propaganda, or, surrounded by actual shit police departments.
And before you think I'm some automatic "cop defender", when I lived just 100 miles away for college, I was surrounded by shit cops, some of which who went to prison for being shit cops, and one even lied on a police report that I tried to file when I was robbed.
Mine just sent a guy on ten day suspension WITHOUT PAY for getting mad at his kids football game and throwing a helmet. He was off-duty and still reflected poorly on the profession and his department so BAM, 10 days without pay.
It even made the news because so many people care about it.
Contrast that with whatever cesspool you're stuck living in, and once again, I suggest: You should probably move. Unless you're just exagerating and you're not actually in fear of injustice. But if your story is true, you should be.
Because if you think every police department is like that, then you're either listening to non-stop propaganda, or, surrounded by actual shit police departments.
And before you think I'm some automatic "cop defender", when I lived just 100 miles away for college, I was surrounded by shit cops, some of which who went to prison for being shit cops, and one even lied on a police report that I tried to file when I was robbed.
How does this compare to the police force that you've dealt with in your work? It seems like these guys can't warm a seat with their asses on fire.
Link doesn't work, great story though. Hope the guy gets 10 years plus. We should have very little tolerance, as a society, for these sorts of violent crimes.
> As an officer of the court myself ...
Could you elaborate on that? I have some thoughts but want to know if my thoughts are really valid. What type of court officer are you? Is it in the same jurisdiction? Things like that. I don't want to prejudice your responses.
(I should also mention that my thoughts aren't going to put any blame on you.)
Could you elaborate on that? I have some thoughts but want to know if my thoughts are really valid. What type of court officer are you? Is it in the same jurisdiction? Things like that. I don't want to prejudice your responses.
(I should also mention that my thoughts aren't going to put any blame on you.)
My thoughts here would be "is an attorney".
Mine was prosecuting attorney. I don't think defense attorneys are considered officers of the court, but I'm not sure and it may vary by jurisdiction.
All attorneys are considered officers of the court (at least in America). It’s concomitant with the various ethical regulations imposed on licensed lawyers.
[deleted]
In practical terms in the US, nearly any time someone uses that phrase, they are an attorney. From context, OP is probably neither a prosecutor nor a criminal defense attorney, because they would likely mention that given its relevance.
Technically though, officer of the court is a pretty broad term that includes judges, magistrates, medical examiners and coroners, process servers, interpreters, and even bail bondsman. Anyone who plays a role in the functioning of the court and has duties to ensure justice is carried out. But really in practice you never hear anyone except lawyers refer to themselves as such.
It's usually a phrase we use to indicate that messing with us means messing with the judicial system, which tends to invite harsh punishment from judges, who are after all themselves attorneys.
Technically though, officer of the court is a pretty broad term that includes judges, magistrates, medical examiners and coroners, process servers, interpreters, and even bail bondsman. Anyone who plays a role in the functioning of the court and has duties to ensure justice is carried out. But really in practice you never hear anyone except lawyers refer to themselves as such.
It's usually a phrase we use to indicate that messing with us means messing with the judicial system, which tends to invite harsh punishment from judges, who are after all themselves attorneys.
If you represent yourself pro se you are also an officer of the court.
So at what point are leos liable to destruction of evidence?
Whats the current state of affairs?
How about firing anyone who tampers with the evidence? And I mean actually let them go, not give them indefinite paid vacation.
My local PD recently sent a guy home for 10 days WITHOUT pay for merely getting mad at his son's football game and throwing a helmet.
It was unbecoming of their professional standards (even off-duty) and he's representing the community. It even made the news (how I heard about it).
So remember, there are plenty of good cops and good forces out there. It's just the shit ones never get held accountable.
It was unbecoming of their professional standards (even off-duty) and he's representing the community. It even made the news (how I heard about it).
So remember, there are plenty of good cops and good forces out there. It's just the shit ones never get held accountable.
I hear these stories and on one hand I am sad for the good cops and forces out there. On the other I think we do have to focus on the bad ones because we need to fix it. Stories like this are still valuable because they remind us that it is possible to hold your police force to an appropriate standard.
People and cops are not "good" or "bad".
People who work in retail who grow to hate customers are not bad. Most probably want to yell at or strangle certain customers but they don't.
Giving people power without accountability is the problem.
People who work in retail who grow to hate customers are not bad. Most probably want to yell at or strangle certain customers but they don't.
Giving people power without accountability is the problem.
Yeah, and I just demonstrated that my local PD is (generally) accountable.
Meanwhile, when I went to college ~100 miles away, man, the PD was horrific. They even lied on a police report I tried to file when I was robbed and said to my face (when I confronted them) "I'm not filing that report for you."
Meanwhile, when I went to college ~100 miles away, man, the PD was horrific. They even lied on a police report I tried to file when I was robbed and said to my face (when I confronted them) "I'm not filing that report for you."
Just firing? How is that not a crime punishable by jailtime?
We'll all have to become gargoyles, recording everything around us.
It probably shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Police officers are almost entirely decent people that shouldn't feel the need to change their behavior just because they're being recorded.
Regular citizens would already be on their best behavior around cops, the camera doesn't change much.
I think people get a skewed perception of the police force from a relatively small number of highly publicized incidents.
Counter option: The DC cops are so brazen that they don't even care if they're being caught on film. This doesn't seem likely, since it would be such an easy payday for some hungry defense lawyer.
Regular citizens would already be on their best behavior around cops, the camera doesn't change much.
I think people get a skewed perception of the police force from a relatively small number of highly publicized incidents.
Counter option: The DC cops are so brazen that they don't even care if they're being caught on film. This doesn't seem likely, since it would be such an easy payday for some hungry defense lawyer.
> I think people get a skewed perception of the police force from a relatively small number of highly publicized incidents.
I assume you are white which is why you made that statement, I think a black person would have a different opinion.
I assume you are white which is why you made that statement, I think a black person would have a different opinion.
Surprised to see this downvoted - it was my initial thought as well. If most cops are decent and doing what they think is right, then that wouldn't change just because they're wearing bodycams.
That said, I still think bodycams are a great idea. I hadn't heard justification of them based on improving some aggregate statistics before. Instead, I've always thought they were good for those particularly difficult "he said / she said" cases that capture public attention.
That said, I still think bodycams are a great idea. I hadn't heard justification of them based on improving some aggregate statistics before. Instead, I've always thought they were good for those particularly difficult "he said / she said" cases that capture public attention.
I think maybe it was downvoted because it misses the point, just as the article misses the point. Behavior change would be nice but the real benefit here is accountability. So what if there were 1.6% (made up number) rate of reported bad behaviors, and now the rate is still 1.6% -- the point is that in those 1.6% of cases, there is now the best kind of evidence to ensure that the facts are represented accurately when these cases are adjudicated. That accurate portrayal of facts will actually protect both cops and citizens.
>Instead, I've always thought they were good for those particularly difficult "he said / she said" cases that capture public attention.
I agree, but at what price point would you say it's worth it?
In principle I want bodycams, but with this new study it's making me wonder if pragmatically it's really worth spending millions of dollars each year just for a handful of difficult 'he said / she said' cases to be better resolved.
Probably it still is given that these small handful of cases get the biggest media attention / public backlash that hurts the image of the police. In that sense bodycams can almost be thought of as a public relations expense.
I agree, but at what price point would you say it's worth it?
In principle I want bodycams, but with this new study it's making me wonder if pragmatically it's really worth spending millions of dollars each year just for a handful of difficult 'he said / she said' cases to be better resolved.
Probably it still is given that these small handful of cases get the biggest media attention / public backlash that hurts the image of the police. In that sense bodycams can almost be thought of as a public relations expense.
Only millions? No problem at all.
Let's revise that estimate, though.
765,000 sworn state-level personnel in 2008. We'll round up to a million.
At $1000 each for hardened, certified cameras, that's a billion dollars. But we should expect them to last about three years, so $333M each year.
Storage costs are cheap, but secure handling of storage is not. Let's say one full-time $100K employee per hundred camera-wearing officers. That's a billion dollars per year.
So I'll go with a cost estimate of 1.3 - 1.5 billion per year for cameras for all police officers.
Is that worth it? I think so.
Let's revise that estimate, though.
765,000 sworn state-level personnel in 2008. We'll round up to a million.
At $1000 each for hardened, certified cameras, that's a billion dollars. But we should expect them to last about three years, so $333M each year.
Storage costs are cheap, but secure handling of storage is not. Let's say one full-time $100K employee per hundred camera-wearing officers. That's a billion dollars per year.
So I'll go with a cost estimate of 1.3 - 1.5 billion per year for cameras for all police officers.
Is that worth it? I think so.
$1000 is way too high. I bought a helmet cam in 2009 that was designed for military applications (fairly robust, easy to change AA batteries) and it cost about $300-400 back then. Looking for fairly robust cameras I can see that the action camera in Olympus Tough lineup is currently selling for $350. I've seen other cameras in this product line take a good beating and come out fine.
Obviously there would be additional costs (memory cards, readers, batteries, chargers, harness, etc) but I don't see why it would come to more than $500-600 per person at most.
Obviously there would be additional costs (memory cards, readers, batteries, chargers, harness, etc) but I don't see why it would come to more than $500-600 per person at most.
About $450 a pop with dock. Storage is expensive though. Cameras on all times and retention for 90 days is what this particular department had.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-09-24/police-wei...
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-09-24/police-wei...
Why is the lifetime so short? Are the batteries non-replaceable? I'd definitely be looking into replacing worn out batteries on $1000 devices.
Oh, it will probably go down over time, but remember that police departments aren't going to go out and buy $399 Go-Pros.
No, they'll be buying tactical harnesses and military-tough specially cased relabeled $299 Go-Pros for $999 for each complete system, from a certified minority-owned business in partnership with Halliburton.
No, they'll be buying tactical harnesses and military-tough specially cased relabeled $299 Go-Pros for $999 for each complete system, from a certified minority-owned business in partnership with Halliburton.
The way you chained that together was almost musical.
And yet many people don’t on their phones that cost close to this.
Back in the days when you could replace the batteries on most phones they would be badly obsolete and unsupported in 3 years. Even today it's a bit iffy on spending the $50 to replace a battery in a 3 year old Android phone.
A camera won't become obsolete nearly as fast. Assuming the cops shoot in HD today (it would be really dumb if they didn't) then that will still be HD tomorrow. Maybe not 4k, but honestly I don't think 4k brings a lot to the table at this time in this application.
A camera won't become obsolete nearly as fast. Assuming the cops shoot in HD today (it would be really dumb if they didn't) then that will still be HD tomorrow. Maybe not 4k, but honestly I don't think 4k brings a lot to the table at this time in this application.
I disagree, human vision is pretty amazing with a huge field of view and while the amount of detail is only really high at the center of vision to match what an officer can make out you'd pretty much need a lot of detail everywhere. I don't think we'll see affordable 4k body cameras for a while but there's definitely benefits to recording in 4k.
Those he said/she said events can turn into multi-million dollar lawsuits really quickly. It only takes a couple of incidents for the cameras to pay for themselves.
The data storage issue is definitely a concern, but I think it is one that can be effectively managed.
The data storage issue is definitely a concern, but I think it is one that can be effectively managed.
wait but wouldn't the states have to pay for those lawsuits if the video evidence showed the cop doing the thing? Ohh I guess the narrative is that the police is most often wrongfully accused of wrongdoing, costing the state millions, which the cameras could help to clear up. Fnord.
An economic solution lies in wait. What is the impact of settlements in "he said / she said" cases resolved in the defendant's favor? Is it "millions of dollars each year"?
I don't know if that works... I mean, even if it's millions of $ each year that PD have to settle/pay, why does it hurt them? Aren't they simply going to pass that cost back to the taxpayers?
Police departments have budgets, not blank checks. If the police come to the local government saying they need an extra umpty-million this year because they keep getting sued for brutality, questions are going to be asked.
Certainly, but at the end of the day, they'll say: "well if we don't get $x then we will have to cut the force. If we don't pay our officers, they are just going to leave."
What do you do then? You can fire people you hold accountable, but that isn't going to fix your budget situation: if you don't fund the PD, the services are going to be cut, and taxpayers are going to be impacted.
This explains too much, since there have been other depts that did see a likely effect (like Rialto). I found this part more compelling:
> Finally, cameras may have had less impact in Washington, D.C., because the police department there has already had to confront excessive-force problems. After a devastating 1998 Washington Post series revealed that the city’s police department had shot and killed more people per resident in the 1990s than any other police force in a large American city, the Department of Justice entered into a memorandum of agreement with D.C. to reform its policing.
I do think people overstate the extent to which police violence in the US is a problem of evil cops committing wanton abuse as opposed to deeper systemic issues, but I think it's possible that bodycams end up being a useful piece of that puzzle.
> Finally, cameras may have had less impact in Washington, D.C., because the police department there has already had to confront excessive-force problems. After a devastating 1998 Washington Post series revealed that the city’s police department had shot and killed more people per resident in the 1990s than any other police force in a large American city, the Department of Justice entered into a memorandum of agreement with D.C. to reform its policing.
I do think people overstate the extent to which police violence in the US is a problem of evil cops committing wanton abuse as opposed to deeper systemic issues, but I think it's possible that bodycams end up being a useful piece of that puzzle.
It's blindingly obvious (to me) that the cops are just disabling the cameras before doing controversial things. I find it extremely surprising that nobody else seems to believe this theory.
As another commented pointed out downthread, you can hear them on accidentally-recorded video saying things like "We're still red here! Be careful!" when planting evidence/stealing stuff/whatever.
Disclaimer: I think both street protesters/identity politics activists and the police are basically run by assholes.
As another commented pointed out downthread, you can hear them on accidentally-recorded video saying things like "We're still red here! Be careful!" when planting evidence/stealing stuff/whatever.
Disclaimer: I think both street protesters/identity politics activists and the police are basically run by assholes.
It'd be trivial to find evidence of that in the data. They said that the number of use of force incidents was the same in the camera and non-camera groups. If the cops were disabling their cameras in anticipation of these events, these events would not show up in their camera recordings.
It's not trivial to find that in the data. The cops are not required to keep the camera on all the time, or at least there is no consequence not doing so. They got the number from "administrative data", basically just police reports and civilian complaints, etc. Nothing related to the camera data at all.
Or it could also mean that, camera or not, the cop could get away with anything as if the camera wasn't present.
There are many other possible interpretations of the data, besides the one you provide above.
E.g. the cops can do lots of shady stuff that isn't a "use of force incident."
E.g. the cops can do lots of shady stuff that isn't a "use of force incident."
Yes, but that'd show up in the data. If there were complaints against them, and those happened to coincide with the cameras being off, that's a very easy thing to detect in the data.
As far as I can tell, there is no analysis of the video data mentioned in this article. They're only comparing numbers of complaints with and without cameras.
I personally know of two cops that blatantly admit that they do this as well. Now, I'm just a single-data point, but I wonder if there is any data as to how many times videos are "redacted" or "lost".
> Police officers are almost entirely decent people
should perhaps be
> Police officers are almost entirely almost decent people
The fact that the "few" (so we're told) bad apples aren't rooted out by their fellow honest, law-abiding officers suggests they're not as squeaky clean as some might think.
should perhaps be
> Police officers are almost entirely almost decent people
The fact that the "few" (so we're told) bad apples aren't rooted out by their fellow honest, law-abiding officers suggests they're not as squeaky clean as some might think.
I can't claim to be more than an almost decent person myself. If you require the police to be angels, well, those are in short supply down here...
Note well: I am not saying that we should lower the standard of behavior that we expect police to abide by. I am merely saying that, in the real world, almost decent is probably the best we can actually find.
Note well: I am not saying that we should lower the standard of behavior that we expect police to abide by. I am merely saying that, in the real world, almost decent is probably the best we can actually find.
Yet in the UK unarmed officers will happily trap a man with a knife behind a shopping cart until he gets tired.
In the US people get shot for carrying a tiny razor blade...
You can train people to deescalate rather than shooting; to use minimal force; to remain calm while exercising force; to ask someone if they doing fine, while forcefully holding them to the ground. Or calmly explain to a hysterical individual being held down that things are going to be okay.
It takes training though.
In the US people get shot for carrying a tiny razor blade...
You can train people to deescalate rather than shooting; to use minimal force; to remain calm while exercising force; to ask someone if they doing fine, while forcefully holding them to the ground. Or calmly explain to a hysterical individual being held down that things are going to be okay.
It takes training though.
It doesn't require an angel to turn in a coworker who executes a black man in cold blood.
Or they don't know. I had a coworker who was recently arrested for child porn. Despite knowing and working with him for years there was no indication that he wasn't "squeaky clean".
But we're talking about incidents that are public. When Eric Garner was choked to death by police, I don't recall hearing a lot of cops call for those detectives to be fired. Hell, when the Mayor of NYC said something about it, at the next event, cops turned their backs on him.
These are not "decent people".
These are not "decent people".
> Hell, when the Mayor of NYC said something about it, at the next event, cops turned their backs on him.
> These are not "decent people".
I really don't think it's that clear cut. The cops who turned their backs aren't all, necessarily, bad people. The insularity of police culture generates significant peer pressure for cops to cover each other's backs and to protect their mutual perceived safety and self interest.
They respond to perceived attacks on interests in a similar way to what many subcultures do when they feel their interests are being encroached upon; they protest and grow more insular in solidarity.
This tends to lead to a bubble and allows otherwise decent people to, inadvertently or otherwise, overlook the shortcomings of "a few bad apples", in the interest of protecting people who they think have their best interests at heart.
I'm not saying this is good, it's just important to remember that cops are humans and behave like humans. Training is supposed to reduce the incidence of human misbehavior but I think that even just the fact that police wear uniforms tends to make them take the side of the "team" that they're representing.
> These are not "decent people".
I really don't think it's that clear cut. The cops who turned their backs aren't all, necessarily, bad people. The insularity of police culture generates significant peer pressure for cops to cover each other's backs and to protect their mutual perceived safety and self interest.
They respond to perceived attacks on interests in a similar way to what many subcultures do when they feel their interests are being encroached upon; they protest and grow more insular in solidarity.
This tends to lead to a bubble and allows otherwise decent people to, inadvertently or otherwise, overlook the shortcomings of "a few bad apples", in the interest of protecting people who they think have their best interests at heart.
I'm not saying this is good, it's just important to remember that cops are humans and behave like humans. Training is supposed to reduce the incidence of human misbehavior but I think that even just the fact that police wear uniforms tends to make them take the side of the "team" that they're representing.
An enormous amount of evil that has occurred in this world has involved peer pressure. And all evil has extenuating circumstances. I understand that to prevent evil we should understand the reasoning behind why people do bad things. But this doesn't make the people or acts less evil.
Peer pressure or not, protesting accountability for your group after a member committed manslaughter is a bad act.
Peer pressure or not, protesting accountability for your group after a member committed manslaughter is a bad act.
I suppose it wasn't entirely clear as I didn't state it explicitly, but my point really was that a few bad apples spoils the bunch.
>Peer pressure or not, protesting accountability for your group after a member committed manslaughter is a bad act.
I believe they were protesting the generalizations he insinuated about the entire police department. I found it distasteful, but the good cops had a reason to be pissed.
I believe they were protesting the generalizations he insinuated about the entire police department. I found it distasteful, but the good cops had a reason to be pissed.
I don't know about everyone else, but until they start to step up and turn in the bad apples, I will personally continue to make generalizations. These people are police officers, it's their job to uphold the law.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, good cops could have turned in serious offenders, but we would never know about it because we only get our information from the news. I assume the PD would keep it internal.
Granted, that is an optimistic view.
Granted, that is an optimistic view.
If you turn your back on a mayor asking for police accountability, and you side with those who wantonly murder innocent people, then you are a bad person. They are people, but they're also given quite a lot of power. I don't think it is a bad thing that they be held to a higher standard of accountability for it. That, and I also don't think that "don't take the side of those who murder innocent people" is a high standard.
> The insularity of police culture generates significant peer pressure for cops to cover each other's backs and to protect their mutual perceived safety and self interest.
If you are a cop and succumb to peer pressure to protect bad cops from the consequences of their actions, then I submit that you are also a bad cop.
We must hold the police to a higher standard than "they're just human; they can't help behaving this way".
If you are a cop and succumb to peer pressure to protect bad cops from the consequences of their actions, then I submit that you are also a bad cop.
We must hold the police to a higher standard than "they're just human; they can't help behaving this way".
History is full of murderous monsters who were nothing but kind to their families and neighbors. I recognize that these cops are not mustache-twirling villains but humans subject to various emotional pressures, but if they're enabling and protecting murderers then they are not good cops.
[deleted]
You should sprinkle some more "I think" and "I believe" and "I'm under the impression" when stating your opinions, because none of what you say is anything more than speculation and just-so stories.
I led the comment with "I really don't think it's that clear cut" - intending to indicate I was about to express an opinion.
I have a friend in the NYPD, who did not turn his back on the mayor in that incident.
This problem needs to be solved from the top down. Police need to be constantly reminded that their job is more than just being enforcers.
I have a friend in the NYPD, who did not turn his back on the mayor in that incident.
This problem needs to be solved from the top down. Police need to be constantly reminded that their job is more than just being enforcers.
When writing an opinion piece, at least in formal writing which has higher standards, writers are trained not to do that. At least in the writing classes I took ages ago.
Here's why:
https://preciseedit.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/in-my-opinion-i...
Here's why:
https://preciseedit.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/in-my-opinion-i...
I agree, and of course there's an implied statement of opinion in screeds like GP's, but they set up such a tenuous chain of causality that I just couldn't help myself.
I don't know, if you ask me when in the field of public policy, this approach is a bad idea. When I encounter someone making proposals who is stating opinion as fact, I assume the person doesn't know the difference so I discount their opinion fairly strongly, because a lot if not most people in my experience genuinely don't know the difference.
Yes, journalism is a bit different, but typically opinion pieces either have OPINION written at the top of the article on the web, or appear in the opinion section of the paper. I generally stay away from opinion pieces because they deliberately try to convince me to a particular side of an argument, which usually excludes alternative information. I'd rather come up with my own conclusions.
How wouldn't they know? They go 99% of the time in groups of 2 or more. (And part of the reason for this is precisely to avoid that 1 of them goes rogue when working alone).
Your co-worker didn't wank off to child porn at work with his workmates, I reckon. You cannot compare both situations.
Your co-worker didn't wank off to child porn at work with his workmates, I reckon. You cannot compare both situations.
People get arrested for CP all the time, even when they are completely innocent. Just being arrested doesn't mean anything. If they are sentenced, and serve time, that's something different.
You can get popped for CP just by downloading what you think isn't CP from a torrent client.
IMO you should only get arrested for CP if you are paying to access it, or producing it. As it is now, it's just a tool for the police to criminalize whoever they feel like.
You can get popped for CP just by downloading what you think isn't CP from a torrent client.
IMO you should only get arrested for CP if you are paying to access it, or producing it. As it is now, it's just a tool for the police to criminalize whoever they feel like.
>As it is now, it's just a tool for the police to criminalize whoever they feel like.
There is actually something to this. It's the latest moral justification for around-the-law searches. Last few decades it was drugs. Police can pretty much search anyone if they reasonably believe they have drugs. This can get stretched into anything, such has having a few hundred bucks in cash. This means police can stop and search just about any car.
Next it was terrorism, so police can warranty search anyone or anything at airports, bus stations, train terminals, border crossings, just about anything. These powers aren't limited to terrorist activities either, but terrorism was the justification.
Now, computers yield more information that vehicles, so police need a way to extend their powers to search anyone's computer. Enter child porn.
As a general rule, anytime the government prohibits or extends their power "for the children," it's a huge red flag. Child porn fits into this category. It's hard to object to expansion of power to battle this too. I mean think of the children (ignoring their dystopian future).
There is actually something to this. It's the latest moral justification for around-the-law searches. Last few decades it was drugs. Police can pretty much search anyone if they reasonably believe they have drugs. This can get stretched into anything, such has having a few hundred bucks in cash. This means police can stop and search just about any car.
Next it was terrorism, so police can warranty search anyone or anything at airports, bus stations, train terminals, border crossings, just about anything. These powers aren't limited to terrorist activities either, but terrorism was the justification.
Now, computers yield more information that vehicles, so police need a way to extend their powers to search anyone's computer. Enter child porn.
As a general rule, anytime the government prohibits or extends their power "for the children," it's a huge red flag. Child porn fits into this category. It's hard to object to expansion of power to battle this too. I mean think of the children (ignoring their dystopian future).
The difference here is that the bad cops are bat at being police. The criticism is not about something they do off the clock. Police should be able to ...police themselves.
I assumed the point of body cameras was simply for physical evidence after an incident, that cops might "behave" better due to some psychological effect doesn't strike me as important.
Agreed. I thought that any "nudge" factor was secondary to getting reliable reporting at the scene rather than relying upon corruptible testimony by officers after-the-fact. All the problems stated elsewhere in this thread around discretion in deactivating cameras still exist and need to be addressed.
>I think people get a skewed perception of the police force from a relatively small number of highly publicized incidents.
...who receive lots of back up from other police officers, superiors and the law.
...who receive lots of back up from other police officers, superiors and the law.
[deleted]
Counter counter option: Not all districts are created equally. We know from history that some districts have become so corrupt that the feds had to step in and replace entire police forces.
I suspect police abuse is not as wide-spread as we've been led to believe by social justice marketing, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary. Let's put our engineers to work and get the costs of these camera systems way down, and then let's put them on every cop in the nation. It's not just the BLM folks talking about this, the MRAs also have claims about things like men who are physically abused by women, cop shows up, arrests the man anyways, and those sorts of stories. One way or the other we can put a number of social justice issues to rest.
I suspect police abuse is not as wide-spread as we've been led to believe by social justice marketing, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary. Let's put our engineers to work and get the costs of these camera systems way down, and then let's put them on every cop in the nation. It's not just the BLM folks talking about this, the MRAs also have claims about things like men who are physically abused by women, cop shows up, arrests the man anyways, and those sorts of stories. One way or the other we can put a number of social justice issues to rest.
> social justice marketing ... not just the BLM folks ...
It doesn't sound like you are "open to evidence to the contrary". Those words seem to dismiss such evidence.
It doesn't sound like you are "open to evidence to the contrary". Those words seem to dismiss such evidence.
Skepticism is merited after a certain volume of debunked claims.
Partisans always 'debunk' every claim made that disagrees with them. It's not a meaningful signal.
1. As a point of clarification, I'm not partisan, nor are the sources I had in mind.
2. There's a distinction between "debunked" and "claimed to be debunked"; you're conflating my meaning (the former) with the latter. If you did mean the former, then you're questioning all empiricism and objectivity, in which case we have no basis for discussion or reason and we may as well stop now.
2. There's a distinction between "debunked" and "claimed to be debunked"; you're conflating my meaning (the former) with the latter. If you did mean the former, then you're questioning all empiricism and objectivity, in which case we have no basis for discussion or reason and we may as well stop now.
I can't agree with the characterization of them being "almost entirely decent people" when they clam up and defend the objectively bad among them. Decent people don't do that.
In fact there were some famous studies that disproved that assertion when the "decent people" are part of a larger organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Seems like either a) decent people in fact do that, or b) there just aren't many decent people out there, based on the evidence of the behavior of insiders in pretty much ever organization or industry that's ever had a highly-placed sexual assaulter, fraudster, or similar.
> I think people get a skewed perception of the police force from a relatively small number of highly publicized incidents.
It's not just the incidents themselves, but the fact that the entire force seems to be quite willing to shield the worst offenders.
Sure, Office Steve probably won't knock me around because of my skin color, but how many times has he looked away while Officer John did?
It's not just the incidents themselves, but the fact that the entire force seems to be quite willing to shield the worst offenders.
Sure, Office Steve probably won't knock me around because of my skin color, but how many times has he looked away while Officer John did?
>Police officers are almost entirely decent people . . .
This statement requires justification.
>Research suggests that family violence is two to four times higher in the law-enforcement community than in the general population.
>As the National Center for Women and Policing noted in a heavily footnoted information sheet, "Two studies have found that at least 40 percent of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10 percent of families in the general population. A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24 percent, indicating that domestic violence is two to four times more common among police families than American families in general." Cops "typically handle cases of police family violence informally, often without an official report, investigation, or even check of the victim's safety," the summary continues. "This 'informal' method is often in direct contradiction to legislative mandates and departmental policies regarding the appropriate response to domestic violence crimes." Finally, "even officers who are found guilty of domestic violence are unlikely to be fired, arrested, or referred for prosecution."
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-...
This statement requires justification.
>Research suggests that family violence is two to four times higher in the law-enforcement community than in the general population.
>As the National Center for Women and Policing noted in a heavily footnoted information sheet, "Two studies have found that at least 40 percent of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10 percent of families in the general population. A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24 percent, indicating that domestic violence is two to four times more common among police families than American families in general." Cops "typically handle cases of police family violence informally, often without an official report, investigation, or even check of the victim's safety," the summary continues. "This 'informal' method is often in direct contradiction to legislative mandates and departmental policies regarding the appropriate response to domestic violence crimes." Finally, "even officers who are found guilty of domestic violence are unlikely to be fired, arrested, or referred for prosecution."
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-...
Family violence is also more common in first responders/EMTs and soldiers.
Take a wild guess on what those have in common with police officers.
People that are constantly exposed to highly stressful situations tend to develop psychological problems.
Take a wild guess on what those have in common with police officers.
People that are constantly exposed to highly stressful situations tend to develop psychological problems.
He said:
>Police officers are almost entirely decent people . . .
Between 20% and 40% abuse their families. Does an entirely decent person abuse his family?
I'm not aware of a higher family abuse rate among EMTs, and a quick Google search produced nothing, so I'd appreciate any sources. Your reasoning makes sense, but I can just as easily say that violent people are more inclined to be police officers and soldiers - for obvious reasons. I'd guess it's some of both (some high stress and the attraction of the occupation to violent people).
>Police officers are almost entirely decent people . . .
Between 20% and 40% abuse their families. Does an entirely decent person abuse his family?
I'm not aware of a higher family abuse rate among EMTs, and a quick Google search produced nothing, so I'd appreciate any sources. Your reasoning makes sense, but I can just as easily say that violent people are more inclined to be police officers and soldiers - for obvious reasons. I'd guess it's some of both (some high stress and the attraction of the occupation to violent people).
The problem is that the Atlantic publishes very selective data.
Yes police officers have higher rates than the average, but you know who has higher than even those wife beating cops? Men that work in "demeaning jobs" or professions that are attributed traditionally to women like clerks, secretaries, teacher/classroom aides and maids/helpers.
The vast majority of those articles boil down to a handful of studies the one linked below is probably the most commonly referenced.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002....
And yes most police officers are decent and professional people, but there isn't such thing as being universally decent and any person is capable of the utmost indecency.
And you know what they say about so many intimate partner abuse cases? he/she was the nicest person in the world I would never think they would be capable of it....
People that abuse their partner more often than not do it as a release mechanism rather than their normal pattern of behaviour.
Yes police officers have higher rates than the average, but you know who has higher than even those wife beating cops? Men that work in "demeaning jobs" or professions that are attributed traditionally to women like clerks, secretaries, teacher/classroom aides and maids/helpers.
The vast majority of those articles boil down to a handful of studies the one linked below is probably the most commonly referenced.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002....
And yes most police officers are decent and professional people, but there isn't such thing as being universally decent and any person is capable of the utmost indecency.
And you know what they say about so many intimate partner abuse cases? he/she was the nicest person in the world I would never think they would be capable of it....
People that abuse their partner more often than not do it as a release mechanism rather than their normal pattern of behaviour.
> the Atlantic publishes very selective data
What is that based on?
What is that based on?
Because based on every study while police officers, soldiers and other people that are put in stressful and life threatening situations do exhibit higher rates of abuse men that work at jobs that hurt their ego are even more prominently represented and unlike police officers, soldiers and emergency services personnel they don't have a PTSD just a small dick problem.
Um, this study isn't controlling for socioeconomic status?
It sort of barely controls for age, which finds lower violence when the officers are older.
But it's not very convincing. Anecdotally it seems like there is a domestic violence problem in the population, but you can't compare it to the general population. You need to control for education, background, and socioeconomic status.
It sort of barely controls for age, which finds lower violence when the officers are older.
But it's not very convincing. Anecdotally it seems like there is a domestic violence problem in the population, but you can't compare it to the general population. You need to control for education, background, and socioeconomic status.
You don’t actually need a control to make claims about what fraction of police officers are “decent people”. Even if, hypothetically, decency were determined completely by external factors that happen to correlate with being a police officer, that wouldn’t change the fact that any police officer you meet is likely to be less (or more) decent than some baseline of people in general.
Though, of course, the source itself may be making stronger claims…
Though, of course, the source itself may be making stronger claims…
> I think people get a skewed perception of the police force from a relatively small number of highly publicized incidents.
Or perhaps people arrive at their perceptions based on personal experience? Certainly my own experience with police has shaped my views far more than anything I've seen in the news.
Or perhaps people arrive at their perceptions based on personal experience? Certainly my own experience with police has shaped my views far more than anything I've seen in the news.
> > I think people get a skewed perception of the police force from a relatively small number of highly publicized incidents.
> Or perhaps people arrive at their perceptions based on personal experience?
Probably also a factor, but that's also not representative and subject to perceptual biases.
> Or perhaps people arrive at their perceptions based on personal experience?
Probably also a factor, but that's also not representative and subject to perceptual biases.
>but that's also not representative
One occurrence possibly. When it happens multiple times, I'm not inclined to attribute it to perceptual biases.
One occurrence possibly. When it happens multiple times, I'm not inclined to attribute it to perceptual biases.
What do cops care about a defense lawyer's "easy payday?"
They care when the chief has to explain to the city council why they need an extra $2 million in the budget this year. Shit rolls downhill.
That money isn't paid out of the budget, they have insurance for it.
Insurers are not charities. They price based on a risk model.
A police department with frequent liability payouts can expect their premiums to be priced according to the risk they represent (assuming they are even able to find an insurer still willing to underwrite them).
A police department with frequent liability payouts can expect their premiums to be priced according to the risk they represent (assuming they are even able to find an insurer still willing to underwrite them).
Do those risk adjustments actually occur in real life? Is it even specifically "police insurance," or is it under the umbrella of the insurance for the jurisdiction (city, county, etc.) where those risk adjustments can get buried within larger coverage patterns?
> I think people get a skewed perception of the police force from a relatively small number of highly publicized incidents.
What is this statement based on? Can you provide any data? What about people - whole communities in many places, over generations - who claim to be persecuted continuously by police. Are those people making it up? The people protesting in St Louis - what are they spending all that time and energy on if there is no problem?
This issue has been discussed heavily; I think more 'IMHOs' don't add to what we know about it.
What is this statement based on? Can you provide any data? What about people - whole communities in many places, over generations - who claim to be persecuted continuously by police. Are those people making it up? The people protesting in St Louis - what are they spending all that time and energy on if there is no problem?
This issue has been discussed heavily; I think more 'IMHOs' don't add to what we know about it.
Well, if Ferguson is any example, communities will absolutely lie about the police. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Ev... This isn't to say police are completely innocent; just that the "entire communities..." defense isn't a very good one.
If what you say about Brown is true (Wikipedia is not a reliable source on politically controversial issues), it's not evidence. That's just one incident in among claims by millions of people that have been going on for generations.
> Wikipedia is not a reliable source on politically controversial issues
I can't imagine it's less reliable than, say, the field of sociology. At any rate, the claims in the wikipedia article are well-sourced, so if they are false, it should be trivial to demonstrate as much.
> it's not evidence. That's just one incident in among claims by millions of people that have been going on for generations.
What you describe is evidence. It isn't proof. But your broader point stands--we need more data about this to know how prevalent it is. My only point is that it's not unprecedented for communities to lie--specifically your refutation ("it's been going on for generations") supports my pet theory, which is that a lot of historical oppression by police has turned many black communities against police, driving uncharitable interpretations of police behavior at best and outright slander (as in the Ferguson case) at worst. Note that these communities can be lying and not necessarily be bad people--slander is morally wrong, but it's also an understandable (though unjust, misguided, etc) response to oppression. Compassion and honesty aren't mutually exclusive, as we are often tempted to believe.
I can't imagine it's less reliable than, say, the field of sociology. At any rate, the claims in the wikipedia article are well-sourced, so if they are false, it should be trivial to demonstrate as much.
> it's not evidence. That's just one incident in among claims by millions of people that have been going on for generations.
What you describe is evidence. It isn't proof. But your broader point stands--we need more data about this to know how prevalent it is. My only point is that it's not unprecedented for communities to lie--specifically your refutation ("it's been going on for generations") supports my pet theory, which is that a lot of historical oppression by police has turned many black communities against police, driving uncharitable interpretations of police behavior at best and outright slander (as in the Ferguson case) at worst. Note that these communities can be lying and not necessarily be bad people--slander is morally wrong, but it's also an understandable (though unjust, misguided, etc) response to oppression. Compassion and honesty aren't mutually exclusive, as we are often tempted to believe.
I'm curious how the new study involved 40x more officers than the Rialto study, but only collected 5x more hours of video. Were the Washington officers using the cameras a tenth as much? The article goes on to say that in Washington they collect about 1,000 hours of footage a day, but previously they say the study involves over 2,000 officers, so this sounds like fairly low usage. It says researchers checked to make sure they were turning on the cameras "when they were supposed to" and "found a high level of compliance". Curious.
Yeah, this alone discounts the entire study IMO.
Police body cameras should be on all the time. They averages 30mins per day per officer: no wonder they get funky results.
Police body cameras should be on all the time. They averages 30mins per day per officer: no wonder they get funky results.
"“This is the most important empirical study on the impact of police body-worn cameras to date,” said Harlan Yu from Upturn, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit consulting company that studies how technology affects social issues. It was not directly involved in the research. “The results call into question whether police departments should be adopting body-worn cameras, given their high cost.”"
The point of police body cameras is to have positive evidence of police behavior. If the presence of cameras reduces the number of reported incidents, that is a nice side effect, but otherwise completely irrelevant.
The point of police body cameras is to have positive evidence of police behavior. If the presence of cameras reduces the number of reported incidents, that is a nice side effect, but otherwise completely irrelevant.
The article starts with this:
> "According to decades of research, the presence of other people, cameras or even just a picture of eyes seems to nudge us toward civility"
I don't remember where exactly I've read it (I think it might have been the Slate Star Codex), anyway, I recently came across a blog posting (with sources) which highlighted these as one of the examples of "well established" psychological research results which consistently fail to reproduce (I wish I had bookmarked that posting).
> "According to decades of research, the presence of other people, cameras or even just a picture of eyes seems to nudge us toward civility"
I don't remember where exactly I've read it (I think it might have been the Slate Star Codex), anyway, I recently came across a blog posting (with sources) which highlighted these as one of the examples of "well established" psychological research results which consistently fail to reproduce (I wish I had bookmarked that posting).
This article is kind of absurd in its assumption, I think it's irresponsible. By saying that you thought police would modify their behavior in response to being filmed, and especially (but not only) by citing a bunch of studies where CRIMINALS changed their behavior in response to being filmed, you are implying that the officers would change their behavior because THEY KNOW THEIR BEHAVIOR IS WRONG and they were doing it anyway. You're essentially saying you are surprised more officers are not actively criminals.
The actual problem is more likely that in the vast majority of incidents officers DO NOT KNOW what they're doing is wrong, that for instance they're acting with bias or unreasonably against someone of color in a way they wouldn't act against a white person. The ACTUAL purpose of the body cameras is to create a record that allows ACCOUNTABILITY for officers ("I felt threatened" with no evidence is no longer enough to justify a shooting). Only with that accountability can we start to PROVE that officers are acting unfairly whether they consciously intend to or not, and then fix the problem (with "training" as the article says but with no detail may as well have been saying nothing).
The actual problem is more likely that in the vast majority of incidents officers DO NOT KNOW what they're doing is wrong, that for instance they're acting with bias or unreasonably against someone of color in a way they wouldn't act against a white person. The ACTUAL purpose of the body cameras is to create a record that allows ACCOUNTABILITY for officers ("I felt threatened" with no evidence is no longer enough to justify a shooting). Only with that accountability can we start to PROVE that officers are acting unfairly whether they consciously intend to or not, and then fix the problem (with "training" as the article says but with no detail may as well have been saying nothing).
I think the article does, to some extent, address this when it says that the situations that we would most hope for modification in police behaviour are also likely to be the situations where the officer is under significant stress and has defaulted to their most primal response. So while I take your point that police don't think they are doing anything wrong when they misbehave, I think it is more correct to say that police aren't considering moderating their behaviour when they are in those particular situations.
I think the bias of this article against the cameras is obvious. I never thought the purpose of body cams were to improve police behaviour by some psychological effect (though a great benefit if it does), but to provide a record of what actually happened. They are also about protecting officers when they use force that is justified, or other situations where the need to defend their actions.
> For seven months, just over a thousand Washington, D.C., police officers were randomly assigned cameras — and another thousand were not. Researchers tracked use-of-force incidents, civilian complaints, charging decisions and other outcomes to see if the cameras changed behavior. But on every metric, the effects were too small to be statistically significant. Officers with cameras used force and faced civilian complaints at about the same rates as officers without cameras.
...
> Another possibility is that officers without cameras were acting like officers with cameras, simply because they knew other officers had the devices.
Or it also causes organisational changes. You can imagine the kind of things high-ranking officers will be telling their reports if they know things are going to be recorded.
Is the problem a few bad apples? Or is the problem training and discipline? If it's the later, then cameras can probably do a lot more, by scaring the Inspectors into doing their jobs properly.
...
> Another possibility is that officers without cameras were acting like officers with cameras, simply because they knew other officers had the devices.
Or it also causes organisational changes. You can imagine the kind of things high-ranking officers will be telling their reports if they know things are going to be recorded.
Is the problem a few bad apples? Or is the problem training and discipline? If it's the later, then cameras can probably do a lot more, by scaring the Inspectors into doing their jobs properly.
Rossi's Metallic Laws of social program evaluation ( https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1987-rossi ):
- The Iron Law of Evaluation: "The expected value of any net impact assessment of any large scale social program is zero."
- The Stainless Steel Law of Evaluation: "The better designed the impact assessment of a social program, the more likely is the resulting estimate of net impact to be zero."
- The Brass Law of Evaluation: "The more social programs are designed to change individuals, the more likely the net impact of the program will be zero."
- The Zinc Law of Evaluation: "Only those programs that are likely to fail are evaluated."
- The Iron Law of Evaluation: "The expected value of any net impact assessment of any large scale social program is zero."
- The Stainless Steel Law of Evaluation: "The better designed the impact assessment of a social program, the more likely is the resulting estimate of net impact to be zero."
- The Brass Law of Evaluation: "The more social programs are designed to change individuals, the more likely the net impact of the program will be zero."
- The Zinc Law of Evaluation: "Only those programs that are likely to fail are evaluated."
See the difference is cops - get away with anything/almost anything. So without a 'penalty' or fear factor for doing wrong, what's the point if they do, other than possible public humiliation?
To me, the important potential of police body cameras is not in the middle of the Bell Curve. The important effects are in the tails. The routine traffic stop that is a routine traffic stop isn't where a camera matters as much as the routine traffic stop that turns non-routine.
The important cases are where it's some civilian's word against one or several officers. It is when the police make a mistake that future training might avoid. And it is when the optics of police behavior turn out to be worse than actual police behavior.
The important cases are where it's some civilian's word against one or several officers. It is when the police make a mistake that future training might avoid. And it is when the optics of police behavior turn out to be worse than actual police behavior.
So my mind has two explanations:
1. Police officers rarely abuse.
2. Police officers abuse and do not care if they are recorded.
It is not clear which one is which. 1 makes you think we are in a really good shape. 2 makes you think that it is a very bad situation. If it is either 1 or 2, then it can't be something in between, right?
1. Police officers rarely abuse.
2. Police officers abuse and do not care if they are recorded.
It is not clear which one is which. 1 makes you think we are in a really good shape. 2 makes you think that it is a very bad situation. If it is either 1 or 2, then it can't be something in between, right?
Is the Washington DC police district known to be relatively free of the corruption that plagues e.g. Oakland and Chicago? It's possible they measured a district that's already "constantly under observation", and thus detected no significant behavioral shifts.
If you read the article you would find that very issue addressed:
"After a devastating 1998 Washington Post series revealed that the city’s police department had shot and killed more people per resident in the 1990s than any other police force in a large American city, the Department of Justice entered into a memorandum of agreement with D.C. to reform its policing.
“We went through a transformation with regard to use of force when Justice came in here,” Chief Newsham said.
Cities that lack such accountability in their police culture may find cameras more effective, under this theory. "
"After a devastating 1998 Washington Post series revealed that the city’s police department had shot and killed more people per resident in the 1990s than any other police force in a large American city, the Department of Justice entered into a memorandum of agreement with D.C. to reform its policing.
“We went through a transformation with regard to use of force when Justice came in here,” Chief Newsham said.
Cities that lack such accountability in their police culture may find cameras more effective, under this theory. "
It's almost like the fact that police face zero consequences for their violence might play a role.
I don't see the link to the Github repo with statistical code. Did anyone see it? Is this open science?
Convincing the criminal to repent would be nice. But catching the criminal is enough.
Besides the overall result, another fact that surprised me:
The devices vary in price, but the biggest expense is the data-storage cost. In Washington, M.P.D. officers collect about a thousand hours of footage a day. About 40 percent of it is deleted within 90 days, while the rest is to be kept for months, years or decades, depending on the statute of limitations for the charges connected to the footage.
The devices vary in price, but the biggest expense is the data-storage cost. In Washington, M.P.D. officers collect about a thousand hours of footage a day. About 40 percent of it is deleted within 90 days, while the rest is to be kept for months, years or decades, depending on the statute of limitations for the charges connected to the footage.
Having worked with law enforcement I can expand on this - car dash cam footage takes an impressive amount of storage as well. Given how the cameras are triggered, sometimes the footage is not needed or useful and therefore can be deleted. In other instances, depending on case charges and footage, the video has to be kept until further notice - the word 'indefinitely' is rarely used but that is the implication. Of course the body cams adds to this.
This sounds like a good use case for cold storage like AWS glacier. If you assume 1000 hours of footage would be ~600GB, 1 day of footage would cost ~2.4 cents per month on glacier until you go to retrieve it. Or, 75 cents per month for each month of footage. Most footage would never be watched and eventually purged.
I'm not sure how chain of custody would work...perhaps digitally signing the uploads and keeping those signature records locally at the station. But the USG uses AWS, so I'm sure some solution could be found.
I'm not sure how chain of custody would work...perhaps digitally signing the uploads and keeping those signature records locally at the station. But the USG uses AWS, so I'm sure some solution could be found.
It does sound like a good use case for that, and it is, but you're thinking like a Silicon Valley engineer type, not like a company that sells products to the government: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-16/taser-is-...
Taser probably just puts the videos in AWS or something, but the markup is obscene.
Taser probably just puts the videos in AWS or something, but the markup is obscene.
Personally I think police could not only solve their storage problem, but also create a revenue stream and public good will: by simply storing the video on a public service like YouTube. It also increases transparency though, which is probably why it will never happen.
There will be footage recorded by those cameras that will drastically impinge on the privacy of civilians should it be shared publicly.
It's a nice idea, but I think it has some pretty significant potential for downsides.
It's a nice idea, but I think it has some pretty significant potential for downsides.
I find this idea very toxic. If the state can send an agent somewhere, then that place and the goings-on that were witnessed are a matter of public record.
If that isn't so, and isn't sacred, then we're saying that secrecy in policing is normal, and that goes against hundreds of years of progress in the common-law tradition.
In order for people to enjoy the kind of privacy you discuss, we need to have non-state support services that are completely disconnected from the matter of enforcement of th e law.
If that isn't so, and isn't sacred, then we're saying that secrecy in policing is normal, and that goes against hundreds of years of progress in the common-law tradition.
In order for people to enjoy the kind of privacy you discuss, we need to have non-state support services that are completely disconnected from the matter of enforcement of th e law.
> I find this idea very toxic. If the state can send an agent somewhere...
if the cops bust into your house because they misread the address of the warrant (something which happens regularly), and they capture some video of you walking around eating cereal naked, do you think that should immediately and irrevocably go up on youtube?
if the cops bust into your house because they misread the address of the warrant (something which happens regularly), and they capture some video of you walking around eating cereal naked, do you think that should immediately and irrevocably go up on youtube?
Obviously in a decent society this is a horrific, abhorrent affront.
And yes, I'm fine with the horrific, abhorrent affronts of the state being public if I'm the victim.
How about we stop allowing police to search homes in the first place in 99.9% of cases?
And yes, I'm fine with the horrific, abhorrent affronts of the state being public if I'm the victim.
How about we stop allowing police to search homes in the first place in 99.9% of cases?
"And yes, I'm fine with the horrific, abhorrent affronts of the state being public if I'm the victim."
Ok. I'm not.
Ok. I'm not.
If an agent of the state commits a "horrific, abhorrent affront" against you, you want it to be kept secret? That's what I'm reading here.
That would be a fair interpretation if that's all they did. However, we all know that law enforcement agents do lots of other things that the people involved would rather not be made public. A cop being a first responder to someone having a seizure, or consoling a rape victim, are things that I'm pretty sure those people would not want to be public.
Ok but in that case the state did not commit an abhorrent act.
There is definitely a middle ground somewhere around this. Perhaps the victim must consent (assuming the victim can?)
This is trivial to argue against, though. Officer heads to restroom to help patient that is having seizures. Heck, officer heads anywhere to help citizen having seizures.
(Substitute any of a number of incidents and the argument remains mostly the same.)
Is it public record that it happened? Yes. Should it be shielded from anyone knowing? I don't think so. Should it be publicly broadcast? Almost certainly not.
(Substitute any of a number of incidents and the argument remains mostly the same.)
Is it public record that it happened? Yes. Should it be shielded from anyone knowing? I don't think so. Should it be publicly broadcast? Almost certainly not.
The underlying question here is: what does enforcement of the public ordinances have to do with medical aid? Why has our society conflated those? Why has our society conflated law enforcement with emergency response at all? What do these two things have to do with each other?
That's the problem. The fact that we're talking seriously about affording public policing a sphere of secrecy is just a symptom of that problem.
That's the problem. The fact that we're talking seriously about affording public policing a sphere of secrecy is just a symptom of that problem.
> What do these two things have to do with each other?
They are both emergency responses and require tremendous amount of material and human resources to get there very fast.
Police have the fastest cars with the brightest lights that let them go wherever they want the fastest (Bonus if they have a motorcycle, but those they keep to give speeding tickets for some reason). It also means they are the first ones there and might need to do CPR from time to time or help that guy about to jump down the bridge.
>Why has our society conflated those?
We are imperfect humans in an imperfect world. We can't assign every single task to a different human being. We, as a society, accept that.
>The fact that we're talking seriously about affording public policing a sphere of secrecy is just a symptom of that problem.
There is a big difference between secrecy of the police and privacy of the policed.
Go watch Live PD and come tell me seriously they should stop censoring the names, date of birth, addresses, plate numbers, SSN, wardrobe malfunctions of the victims, witnesses and children that appear in the show.
They take the time to protect the privacy of the bystanders, but it costs money and an incredible amount of resource to do so just for a couple of teams for a couple of hours a week and they don't even do a perfect job.
They are both emergency responses and require tremendous amount of material and human resources to get there very fast.
Police have the fastest cars with the brightest lights that let them go wherever they want the fastest (Bonus if they have a motorcycle, but those they keep to give speeding tickets for some reason). It also means they are the first ones there and might need to do CPR from time to time or help that guy about to jump down the bridge.
>Why has our society conflated those?
We are imperfect humans in an imperfect world. We can't assign every single task to a different human being. We, as a society, accept that.
>The fact that we're talking seriously about affording public policing a sphere of secrecy is just a symptom of that problem.
There is a big difference between secrecy of the police and privacy of the policed.
Go watch Live PD and come tell me seriously they should stop censoring the names, date of birth, addresses, plate numbers, SSN, wardrobe malfunctions of the victims, witnesses and children that appear in the show.
They take the time to protect the privacy of the bystanders, but it costs money and an incredible amount of resource to do so just for a couple of teams for a couple of hours a week and they don't even do a perfect job.
And it is not like an officer is enforcing ordinances at all hours. Nor do we expect them to be. Outreach is a thing. An officer goes in to give a fun speech to a school. Suddenly, kids in the class are being broadcast.
I get it. Most of us are programmers, so we think we can setup a pretty solid set of rules for when something applies. Maybe some of us can. And when that perfect ruleset is found, it will be awesome. However, it is a lot more fluid and discretion is not necessarily a bad thing.
I get it. Most of us are programmers, so we think we can setup a pretty solid set of rules for when something applies. Maybe some of us can. And when that perfect ruleset is found, it will be awesome. However, it is a lot more fluid and discretion is not necessarily a bad thing.
ACLU has written and refined very good rules for proper bodycam use that protects both citizen and police officer privacy.
It's not that black and white but it's not that complex of an issue either.
Act - https://www.aclu.org/other/model-act-regulating-use-wearable..., White Paper - https://www.aclu.org/other/police-body-mounted-cameras-right...
It's not that black and white but it's not that complex of an issue either.
Act - https://www.aclu.org/other/model-act-regulating-use-wearable..., White Paper - https://www.aclu.org/other/police-body-mounted-cameras-right...
Psst. Kids in class are broadcast all the time on the news. Sometimes they're even identified by name, school, and municipality in recognition for some achievement.
Honestly, privacy is nearly dead anyway. I'm not happy about it but there are databases with enough information on us to steal anyone's identity. With that level of information already existing... it seems kind of silly that what we're most worried about with police cameras basically comes down to embarrassment.
It's also weird how hacker news has forgotten that Google Street View has tons of pictures of naked people with automatically blurred faces. Same for Google Maps/Earth.
Honestly, privacy is nearly dead anyway. I'm not happy about it but there are databases with enough information on us to steal anyone's identity. With that level of information already existing... it seems kind of silly that what we're most worried about with police cameras basically comes down to embarrassment.
It's also weird how hacker news has forgotten that Google Street View has tons of pictures of naked people with automatically blurred faces. Same for Google Maps/Earth.
Certain kids are. Typically from affluent areas. Distressed schools typically have kids that need extra privacy considerations. They also need more police outreach.
As another poster said, this is solvable. Just will require more than a few rules.
As another poster said, this is solvable. Just will require more than a few rules.
Police often have training in first aid. In addition, they might be much closer than an ambulance, so might be sent to help out in that case. It's not a problem in the least.
In many places, it's already public record, you just have to request it. However, some places are putting rules in after overly broad and onerous requests ("I want to every piece of body camera footage ever taken" for example, which actually happened in Washington state, and lead to a law a few years later). Usually privacy rights are strongly taken into consideration, and the videos have to be edited and reviewed by humans before release.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/washington-s...
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/washington-s...
Black and white perspectives aren't helpful. When a policing event happens in a private space, a home for example, there are multiple stakeholders whose interests will not always align.
Police catch a child-rapist in the act. Does that go online? What about a normal rape?
Someone's husband falsely but convincingly accuses them of domestic abuse, later they are cleared of all charges. Does this accusation go on youtube?
Someone attempted suicide, and then called the cops because he didn't want to go through with it.
Someone was inadvertently caught on camera in a gay bar when it was raided for drugs.
Someone's husband falsely but convincingly accuses them of domestic abuse, later they are cleared of all charges. Does this accusation go on youtube?
Someone attempted suicide, and then called the cops because he didn't want to go through with it.
Someone was inadvertently caught on camera in a gay bar when it was raided for drugs.
You are arrested for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a domestic pet, following proper procedures, etc., etc.
Video of the arrest goes viral. Hundreds of millions of people across the world see it.
You are later acquited of the charges. But a fat lot of good that does....
Video of the arrest goes viral. Hundreds of millions of people across the world see it.
You are later acquited of the charges. But a fat lot of good that does....
Yeah, good idea to have people help everyone. However it would be duplicating loads of state service and, as always, who pays?
I’m not saying it should be live streamed to YouTube, just for incidents that are resolved or public, and need long term storage. Obviously there would need to be some editing, ideally by an independent team.
Today my officers spent hours talking to a victim of rape, looking after her children and dealing with the aftermath.
I'm sure she'd love that on YouTube for all to see.
I'm sure she'd love that on YouTube for all to see.
I don't think this is a compelling argument.
What is the connection between enforcement of statutory code and medical aid / emergency response? Why do these social services need to be delivered by LEOs?
At my college, one of the best things my student government did was first response in cases of rape and sexual assault. We had a phone number that people were able to call and get a response from a peer who had been trained in the next steps of response, allowing the victim to gain composure and support before dealing with the law enforcement apparatus.
We had a similar service for cases of mental health / psychedelic emergency.
There is no reason that law enforcement need to be first responders in cases of medical emergency.
Unless we're talking about walking back the Peelian principles (and arguably all that is good about western notions of liberty), it is a continuing imperative to ensure that police officers can strictly enforce the law and do so in full public view.
What is the connection between enforcement of statutory code and medical aid / emergency response? Why do these social services need to be delivered by LEOs?
At my college, one of the best things my student government did was first response in cases of rape and sexual assault. We had a phone number that people were able to call and get a response from a peer who had been trained in the next steps of response, allowing the victim to gain composure and support before dealing with the law enforcement apparatus.
We had a similar service for cases of mental health / psychedelic emergency.
There is no reason that law enforcement need to be first responders in cases of medical emergency.
Unless we're talking about walking back the Peelian principles (and arguably all that is good about western notions of liberty), it is a continuing imperative to ensure that police officers can strictly enforce the law and do so in full public view.
Replace talking about a rape with any of many reasons the police might be called and it makes just as little sense to have all these videos public.
Super innocent example: A 14 year old kid breaks their leg and the cops show up to them in agony and crying. Would be very easy for a few people that dislike them to plaster them crying all over social media. Yes, the event was public to begin with, but the chances of one of the bullies walking by and snapping their own photos is almost nil.
A lot of people that are interacting with the police are in a very vulnerable state, it would be asinine to expose that to the world. The thought that it will create "good will" with the public is entirely backwards in my opinion, if I'm in trouble and I know if I get the cops that I may end up all over the internet it may keep me from calling them at all.
Super innocent example: A 14 year old kid breaks their leg and the cops show up to them in agony and crying. Would be very easy for a few people that dislike them to plaster them crying all over social media. Yes, the event was public to begin with, but the chances of one of the bullies walking by and snapping their own photos is almost nil.
A lot of people that are interacting with the police are in a very vulnerable state, it would be asinine to expose that to the world. The thought that it will create "good will" with the public is entirely backwards in my opinion, if I'm in trouble and I know if I get the cops that I may end up all over the internet it may keep me from calling them at all.
> Super innocent example: A 14 year old kid breaks their leg and the cops show up to them in agony and crying.
This seems like the same argument. What does enforcement of the laws have to do with medical aid? Why has our society conflated these two things?
I assert that the state has an interest in injecting law enforcement concepts in all sorts of situation precisely because it opens up uncertainty over its public nature.
Instead, we need law enforcement to be its own discrete activity, and among its norms for it to be entirely public and based on public consent.
Why are we rehashing this almost 200 years after Robert Peel's work?
This seems like the same argument. What does enforcement of the laws have to do with medical aid? Why has our society conflated these two things?
I assert that the state has an interest in injecting law enforcement concepts in all sorts of situation precisely because it opens up uncertainty over its public nature.
Instead, we need law enforcement to be its own discrete activity, and among its norms for it to be entirely public and based on public consent.
Why are we rehashing this almost 200 years after Robert Peel's work?
You used the term "first responders" a post or two up. Police are often the "first responders" to numerous incidents, enforcement or otherwise, simply because they are near the scene and are (rightfully) trained in basic first aid and generally have first aid supplies in their cruiser. Police _should_ be trained to and respond to incidents other than enforcement actions. They are members of our communities, they are employed to protect us (ostensibly).
It is generally the idea that all police do or should do is enforce the law that leads to divisiveness and brutality.
It is generally the idea that all police do or should do is enforce the law that leads to divisiveness and brutality.
Police are people who are trained to deal with stress, qualified to take witness statements (which insurance often requires), have a level of medical knowledge, can get places fast and can get more help (and possibly better qualified help) quick. Why wouldn’t you want them there?
You don’t want police involvement in rapes?
Edit: nice, you edit the parent and don’t note it.
Edit: nice, you edit the parent and don’t note it.
Have you been involved in responding to rape and sexual assault? I have.
There are worlds of difference between jurisdictions in this regard. And also substantial differences in the specifics of a case.
In the (rare) case of a rapist jumping out of the bushes and tackling someone, and then running away in hot pursuit, then sure, a law-enforcement-first response makes sense.
In the far more frequent date rape / party rape situation, where the victim is left to piece together the episode the next morning, then no, I think that there are far, far better responses than LEO-first.
There are worlds of difference between jurisdictions in this regard. And also substantial differences in the specifics of a case.
In the (rare) case of a rapist jumping out of the bushes and tackling someone, and then running away in hot pursuit, then sure, a law-enforcement-first response makes sense.
In the far more frequent date rape / party rape situation, where the victim is left to piece together the episode the next morning, then no, I think that there are far, far better responses than LEO-first.
What a great game of ‘one up’ to play.
Maybe the victim should call whoever they want. Like they can now.
Maybe the victim should call whoever they want. Like they can now.
Until you get the separation of concerns that you are arguing would make publishing surveillance footage a non-issue, it is an issue.
Not everyone has the same privilege as a college student here and now.
Not everyone has the same privilege as a college student here and now.
No thanks. Now anyone with a minor budget can run every single police video through image recognition and get a whole lot of private info on folks you likely don't want getting out.
Happen to be at a party that was broken up due to noise complaints? Drugs were found there? Why were you caught on camera leaving the house when officers arrived? Sounds like you are a liability!
If this actually happened I would give it 6mo before you get a credit agency or something of their ilk providing this data to such agencies for background checks/employment checks/etc. It will take the social media data mining and now include all law enforcement interactions ever.
I, for one, do not want to live in the world where I get to explain every traffic stop to a future employer or my insurance company. I'm sure both would absolutely love that information to use against me.
I think the writing is on the wall on this one though. In my lifetime I fully expect what I describe above to be happening behind the scenes in "public private partnerships". In some cases it already is.
Just yet another way to create permanent second-class citizens like we have with felons, and are trying as hard as we can to extend that into other areas of society.
Happen to be at a party that was broken up due to noise complaints? Drugs were found there? Why were you caught on camera leaving the house when officers arrived? Sounds like you are a liability!
If this actually happened I would give it 6mo before you get a credit agency or something of their ilk providing this data to such agencies for background checks/employment checks/etc. It will take the social media data mining and now include all law enforcement interactions ever.
I, for one, do not want to live in the world where I get to explain every traffic stop to a future employer or my insurance company. I'm sure both would absolutely love that information to use against me.
I think the writing is on the wall on this one though. In my lifetime I fully expect what I describe above to be happening behind the scenes in "public private partnerships". In some cases it already is.
Just yet another way to create permanent second-class citizens like we have with felons, and are trying as hard as we can to extend that into other areas of society.
I feel the same way about 911 calls - it should require explicit consent of the person calling for those calls to be released outside of court.
Having people re-victimized by turning their pleas for help into entertainment is bullshit.
Having people re-victimized by turning their pleas for help into entertainment is bullshit.
Or maybe on a dedicated reality cable TV channel? Cops 24/7. I'll never be able to get that bad boys song out of my head. Surely there would still be a lot of curation.
[deleted]
Yikes! Maybe this is legal, in the same sense that I can go to the bodega and buy a newspaper of local mugshots... but how unfortunate for the people who have the worst 15 minutes of their life faithfully captured and posted on Youtube.
TL;DR: Previous sociology research had suggested that filming people makes them more civil. New research on fails to replicate this result in the context of police body cameras.
Doesn't seem like a very interesting result to me; I hadn't previously heard of the "calming effect" as a reason to use body cameras.
The primary reason to use cameras is to increase accountability, so that police officers are less able to get away with murder, planting evidence, being overtly racist, etc.
Doesn't seem like a very interesting result to me; I hadn't previously heard of the "calming effect" as a reason to use body cameras.
The primary reason to use cameras is to increase accountability, so that police officers are less able to get away with murder, planting evidence, being overtly racist, etc.
Also less false allegations against them
Cities have up to hundreds of autonomous precincts to comprise a single police department.
Every single city and municipality has its own separate police department.
States pass laws allowing for overlapping jurisdictions at their discretion.
No study about "police officers" is going to address that. Elevating these studies to that level is going to continually get conflicting results.
No person knows what a random internal police department's memo on what justified force is. Nobody will know if some local municipality had just reviewed and changed that standard, or if they are currently in a bout of actual corruption.
Every single city and municipality has its own separate police department.
States pass laws allowing for overlapping jurisdictions at their discretion.
No study about "police officers" is going to address that. Elevating these studies to that level is going to continually get conflicting results.
No person knows what a random internal police department's memo on what justified force is. Nobody will know if some local municipality had just reviewed and changed that standard, or if they are currently in a bout of actual corruption.
Exactly.
(How is this at the bottom? I read every single response to this thread waiting to find somebody pointing this out.)
(How is this at the bottom? I read every single response to this thread waiting to find somebody pointing this out.)
Before people start wildly speculating, it's worth considering the many good explanations and interpretations suggested in the article:
One hypothesis is that officers got used to the cameras and became desensitized to them. But the researchers saw no difference in behavior during the initial phase, when the cameras were new. (The researchers also checked the data to make sure officers were turning their cameras on when they were supposed to, and found a very high level of compliance.) Another possibility is that officers without cameras were acting like officers with cameras, simply because they knew other officers had the devices.
An equally plausible explanation has to do with fear: In Washington, police officers are instructed to turn on their cameras whenever they answer a call or encounter the public in a law-enforcement context. The kinds of situations that might lead to civilian complaints or use-of-force incidents are high-stress encounters. When frightened, humans tend to act on automatic fear responses (or, in the case of good police officers in an ideal world, training).
“It’s a lot to ask, psychologically speaking, to not only remember the camera is on but to moderate your behavior,” said Mr. Yokum, the head of the Lab @ DC.
Finally, cameras may have had less impact in Washington, D.C., because the police department there has already had to confront excessive-force problems. After a devastating 1998 Washington Post series revealed that the city’s police department had shot and killed more people per resident in the 1990s than any other police force in a large American city, the Department of Justice entered into a memorandum of agreement with D.C. to reform its policing.
“We went through a transformation with regard to use of force when Justice came in here,” Chief Newsham said.
Cities that lack such accountability in their police culture may find cameras more effective, under this theory. (The Rialto Police Department had been reeling from a series of scandals when the Rialto study showed a large impact from cameras.)
Even if cameras do not reduce violent encounters, they can still offer other kinds of benefits: for training, or to hold a rogue officer accountable after the fact.
To Chief Newsham, the cameras’ primary benefit is to improve relations with the community. “The transparency and trust that the community has, knowing your department is recording the interactions, I don’t think you can undervalue that,” he said.
One hypothesis is that officers got used to the cameras and became desensitized to them. But the researchers saw no difference in behavior during the initial phase, when the cameras were new. (The researchers also checked the data to make sure officers were turning their cameras on when they were supposed to, and found a very high level of compliance.) Another possibility is that officers without cameras were acting like officers with cameras, simply because they knew other officers had the devices.
An equally plausible explanation has to do with fear: In Washington, police officers are instructed to turn on their cameras whenever they answer a call or encounter the public in a law-enforcement context. The kinds of situations that might lead to civilian complaints or use-of-force incidents are high-stress encounters. When frightened, humans tend to act on automatic fear responses (or, in the case of good police officers in an ideal world, training).
“It’s a lot to ask, psychologically speaking, to not only remember the camera is on but to moderate your behavior,” said Mr. Yokum, the head of the Lab @ DC.
Finally, cameras may have had less impact in Washington, D.C., because the police department there has already had to confront excessive-force problems. After a devastating 1998 Washington Post series revealed that the city’s police department had shot and killed more people per resident in the 1990s than any other police force in a large American city, the Department of Justice entered into a memorandum of agreement with D.C. to reform its policing.
“We went through a transformation with regard to use of force when Justice came in here,” Chief Newsham said.
Cities that lack such accountability in their police culture may find cameras more effective, under this theory. (The Rialto Police Department had been reeling from a series of scandals when the Rialto study showed a large impact from cameras.)
Even if cameras do not reduce violent encounters, they can still offer other kinds of benefits: for training, or to hold a rogue officer accountable after the fact.
To Chief Newsham, the cameras’ primary benefit is to improve relations with the community. “The transparency and trust that the community has, knowing your department is recording the interactions, I don’t think you can undervalue that,” he said.
Funny, I noticed an absence of a far more cynical explanation that made me immediately doubt how balanced the article was: if cops know that the footage is difficult to obtain or can be easily suppressed, deleted, or otherwise buried, or if the legal system is already heavily biased in favour of law enforcement such that body cam footage rarely changes trial outcomes, then body cams don't actually contribute to additional accountability and therefore there's no reason to change behaviours.
tl;dr I see no reason to believe body cams have actually resulted in greater transparency or accountability due to offsetting institutional factors.
tl;dr I see no reason to believe body cams have actually resulted in greater transparency or accountability due to offsetting institutional factors.
Also, if you can turn off your body cam (or fail to turn it on), then you are free to behave however you want as though you weren't on camera.
Looking at the provided data, it sounds like they gave most officers cameras. In my experience, police rarely travel alone, yet I couldn't find anything showing they tracked whether another officer on the scene had a camera.
This seems like an issue with the study as the control group is also under the watch of a camera.
This seems like an issue with the study as the control group is also under the watch of a camera.
Somehow I'm not surprised. Incidents are now caught on camera and spread around the news & social media. Yet, in a large portion of the cases where the cops are clearly in the wrong they get a slap on the wrist if that.
There is no real incentive to change their behavior camera or not.
There is no real incentive to change their behavior camera or not.
Indeed not. The prosecution is on the Cops' side. The prosecution decides how vigorously they go after people in Grand Jury and open court. The Judicial system is on the Cops' side, even if during a jury trial they give words that "cops are just like everyone else" - they aren't.
It isn't a thin blue line. It's a big fat highlighter blue bar. The people, vs the Judicial System. And they're the ones that make and enforce the rules.
It isn't a thin blue line. It's a big fat highlighter blue bar. The people, vs the Judicial System. And they're the ones that make and enforce the rules.
1) The feedback loop is not just being filmed on the job, but the repercussions of being filmed while doing something illegal and being punished for it. It might take time for this to sink in, especially for the bad apples.
2) Having body cams on all police officers simply makes sense, regardless of the immediate effect. Knowing exactly (or more about) what happened when a citizen armed on behalf of the state interacts with regular citizens is an obvious priority. Even if enforcing body cams doesn't lead to a reduction of police crime, it will certainly lead to more legal action against police crime, which is typically stifled by police buddy tactics.
2) Having body cams on all police officers simply makes sense, regardless of the immediate effect. Knowing exactly (or more about) what happened when a citizen armed on behalf of the state interacts with regular citizens is an obvious priority. Even if enforcing body cams doesn't lead to a reduction of police crime, it will certainly lead to more legal action against police crime, which is typically stifled by police buddy tactics.
There is a decent privacy argument to be made against body cams. Not just for the officers themselves, but also for the people approached by the officers.
In many cases, when police need to get involved people aren't showing their best sides. Recordings of that kind of stuff are rather sensitive.
You gotta remember that body cams can't just be used against corrupt police, they can just as easily be used against the public. Consider how a closeted gay person reacts when caught drunk with a boyfriend and how the presence of a camera effects that.
You gotta remember that body cams can't just be used against corrupt police, they can just as easily be used against the public. Consider how a closeted gay person reacts when caught drunk with a boyfriend and how the presence of a camera effects that.
This seems obvious to me, but maybe it isn't based on the implementations of body cameras I'm hearing about: the police should not have access to the videos! A camera should automatically upload its contents to off-site encrypted servers, with the courts having sole access to the decryption keys. No one should be able to access the data without a court order.
It's strange to me that, when faced with problems of official power vs privacy, people never seem to remember the idea of warrants, which are baked into our legal system and have been used to address privacy problems for centuries.
It's strange to me that, when faced with problems of official power vs privacy, people never seem to remember the idea of warrants, which are baked into our legal system and have been used to address privacy problems for centuries.
Why shouldn't the public have access at least to the videos filmed in public?
Practically, that would require court-sanctioned employees to go through all the videos and edit out the non-public content before release (automation probably doesn't cut it legally). It would require a significant labor force and cost, substantially reduce the overall privacy of the system, and occasionally release private info by mistake. I'm not opposed to it in principle, but it doesn't seem worth it to me.
Fair point, have an up vote.
>There is a decent privacy argument to be made against body cams. Not just for the officers themselves, but also for the people approached by the officers. In many cases, when police need to get involved people aren't showing their best sides. Recordings of that kind of stuff are rather sensitive.
Why would there be any expectation of privacy for public officials?
Why would there be any expectation of privacy for public officials?
Public officials go to the toilet. Public officials get calls about private matters during the day.
Those are just the basics where a public officials is essentially a private person. These alone should be enough.
There is a whole 'nother set of cases where it is good for a public official to not have to take into consideration they are being monitored. Most of this comes down to helping communication. There is also value in letting people make small mistakes, or even letting people slack of on occasion.
In short, there is a very large overlap between the arguments against a surveillance state and the arguments against always on body cams. Consider also the phenomenon of 'glassholes'. That is, people really disliked talking to someone wearing google glass because they were being filmed.
Those are just the basics where a public officials is essentially a private person. These alone should be enough.
There is a whole 'nother set of cases where it is good for a public official to not have to take into consideration they are being monitored. Most of this comes down to helping communication. There is also value in letting people make small mistakes, or even letting people slack of on occasion.
In short, there is a very large overlap between the arguments against a surveillance state and the arguments against always on body cams. Consider also the phenomenon of 'glassholes'. That is, people really disliked talking to someone wearing google glass because they were being filmed.
I think the privacy argument is about the members of the public the police are interacting with.
I think this is a reasonable position. I lament that support for body cams is such a divisive issue--one needn't believe police are evil to support body cams.
Run this study again and put a prominent blinking light on the camera and I bet the result is different. It's not the fact that you are being watched that changes behavior, it's being aware of the fact that you are being watched. This is why many stores show you the video of yourself as you walk in. The mere presence of cameras is not enough... people have to be reminded they are there.
> Researchers tracked use-of-force incidents,
This is literally impossible. Researchers tracked reports of use-of-force incidents, which is factually rather different. If you hypothetically have fewer incidents and simultaneously higher percentage reporting of incidents when people are able to see if there's probable evidence supporting their complaints (i.e. the visible presence of a body camera), you could end up with a similar number of reports. This would be especially true when reported incident counts are percentagewise quite low relative to total encounters.
I'm not saying that this is true or even likely. I'm saying that it sounds like they didn't actually learn what they are saying they learned, and if true then that cavalier lack of contemplation is very upsetting.
> The primary outcomes of interest were documented uses of force and civilian complaints
The DC/Baltimore area has had some recent high profile falsification of evidence accidentally caught on camera cases. I notice that it's not discussed. Maybe catching when police plant evidence is a legitimately worthwhile endeavor.
Besides, we already know that gathering evidence of malpractice is irrelevant if no meaningful punishment ever results from it.
This is literally impossible. Researchers tracked reports of use-of-force incidents, which is factually rather different. If you hypothetically have fewer incidents and simultaneously higher percentage reporting of incidents when people are able to see if there's probable evidence supporting their complaints (i.e. the visible presence of a body camera), you could end up with a similar number of reports. This would be especially true when reported incident counts are percentagewise quite low relative to total encounters.
I'm not saying that this is true or even likely. I'm saying that it sounds like they didn't actually learn what they are saying they learned, and if true then that cavalier lack of contemplation is very upsetting.
> The primary outcomes of interest were documented uses of force and civilian complaints
The DC/Baltimore area has had some recent high profile falsification of evidence accidentally caught on camera cases. I notice that it's not discussed. Maybe catching when police plant evidence is a legitimately worthwhile endeavor.
Besides, we already know that gathering evidence of malpractice is irrelevant if no meaningful punishment ever results from it.
> The DC/Baltimore area has had some recent high profile falsification of evidence accidentally caught on camera cases.
Such as this one:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/body-camera-video-alleg...
They were only caught out because they forgot that the 30 seconds prior to turning the camera "on" would be included in the video.
Such as this one:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/body-camera-video-alleg...
They were only caught out because they forgot that the 30 seconds prior to turning the camera "on" would be included in the video.
> This is literally impossible. Researchers tracked reports of use-of-force incidents, which is factually rather different.
This is unfair. You're complaining that they didn't do something that you admit is impossible. They measured essentially everything they could.
This is unfair. You're complaining that they didn't do something that you admit is impossible. They measured essentially everything they could.
I'm not upset about what they measured. I'm upset about what they claim they learned from it and about the kinds of causation-related lemmata they (erroneously) assert in the report.
Firstly, you're critiquing a study based on a journalist's write-up about it. Secondly, you're essentially making an epistemological argument. You could apply your core argument to almost anything and come up with the assertion that the research is invalid.
"Researchers tracked use-of-force incidents" -> "Researchers tracked reports of use-of-force incidents, which is factually rather different.
"Researchers observed bosons at 125GeV" -> "Researchers observed detections of bosons at 125GeV, which is factually rather different."
This is merely a pedantic argument that things are not truly knowable. But whether the Higgs boson exists and whether body cameras reduce police violence are not unknowable questions. Even if we cannot directly measure, the indirect measures are meaningful to the questions.
Now, if there's something else that the researchers should measure, then that would be useful criticism.
"Researchers tracked use-of-force incidents" -> "Researchers tracked reports of use-of-force incidents, which is factually rather different.
"Researchers observed bosons at 125GeV" -> "Researchers observed detections of bosons at 125GeV, which is factually rather different."
This is merely a pedantic argument that things are not truly knowable. But whether the Higgs boson exists and whether body cameras reduce police violence are not unknowable questions. Even if we cannot directly measure, the indirect measures are meaningful to the questions.
Now, if there's something else that the researchers should measure, then that would be useful criticism.
There is a pretty big difference in your two examples. Models of bosons behave in a predictable way. I can think of several likely reasons that reports of use-of-force incidents would not correlate directly with actual use-of-force.
As a result, in a study or a journalistic write-up of said study, I wouldn't jump to the shorthand of "tracked use-of-force incidents" as opposed to "reports of use-of-force incidents".
Just because something is the best way of measuring a quantity we currently have doesn't mean it is good enough to equate the measurement with the quantity in shorthand.
As a result, in a study or a journalistic write-up of said study, I wouldn't jump to the shorthand of "tracked use-of-force incidents" as opposed to "reports of use-of-force incidents".
Just because something is the best way of measuring a quantity we currently have doesn't mean it is good enough to equate the measurement with the quantity in shorthand.
I think the examples track pretty well. You could say that body cameras somehow cause a rise and reporting that exactly offsets the reduction in violence, but that’s not even wild conjecture. It’s worse. It’s inventing factors to make the data fit, factors that are by definition not measurable. Whatever we measure, it’s possible to invent a factor that makes the measurement completely wrong.
Scientists could similarly argue that there is another particle that only shows up when we measure that happens to look exactly like the Higgs boson in every way we can measure. But then everyone would call bullshit.
Again, if there are better/other things to measure, that’s legitimate criticism. Simply inventing factors that make the valid measurements null and declaring it impossible to actually measure isn’t.
Scientists could similarly argue that there is another particle that only shows up when we measure that happens to look exactly like the Higgs boson in every way we can measure. But then everyone would call bullshit.
Again, if there are better/other things to measure, that’s legitimate criticism. Simply inventing factors that make the valid measurements null and declaring it impossible to actually measure isn’t.
Measure what you can measure. Claim what you can claim. Don't claim what you can't claim based on what you measured. We're not talking about counting photons here. We're talking about human selective self-reporting under different circumstances. Understand the chasm between those things.
> Firstly, you're critiquing a study based on a journalist's write-up about it.
I'm critiquing a political abuse of a bogus study and also the bogus study itself, based on the study's language and based on the political website referenced by the journalist's write-up, by actually reading them. You can see them too at http://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/ and http://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/static/files/supplementary-material...
> This is merely a pedantic argument that things are not truly knowable.
Bullshit. I'm telling you that correlation doesn't imply causation and rather than saying "oh yeah, I heard that once somewhere, it was probably important" your response is "but physics jargon". They are measuring one thing and making, and these next words are key, an unreasonable leap onto something very different. In your boson world nobody ever doesn't report something that happened. In the real world that is very clearly false.
Even a mediocre scientist accounts for blindingly obvious confounding factors. A better scientist accounts for things that don't even seem like they could possibly be confounding factors just because they are differences. Neither of those appear to have happened here. They assume that reporting rates are predictable for different circumstances just by guessing, which is not a reliable assumption.
And on top of all of that, this report is likely going to be used as a giant war banner in the police union's fight to reduce the use of body cameras. And it just slides right over the fact that cameras actually do see police committing crimes and abuses for which they then don't get significantly punished and which would never have been uncovered otherwise.
It arbitrarily privileges "reported uses of force" as the target of attention rather than "witnessed crimes and other violations". Why? The report isn't titled "Evaluating the Effects of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Uses of Force: A Randomized Controlled Trial". It's called "Evaluating the Effects of Police Body-Worn Cameras: A Randomized Controlled Trial" full stop. And yet they are clearly ignoring huge categories of observed malfeasance in order to tell a particular dismissive story.
I'm critiquing a political abuse of a bogus study and also the bogus study itself, based on the study's language and based on the political website referenced by the journalist's write-up, by actually reading them. You can see them too at http://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/ and http://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/static/files/supplementary-material...
> This is merely a pedantic argument that things are not truly knowable.
Bullshit. I'm telling you that correlation doesn't imply causation and rather than saying "oh yeah, I heard that once somewhere, it was probably important" your response is "but physics jargon". They are measuring one thing and making, and these next words are key, an unreasonable leap onto something very different. In your boson world nobody ever doesn't report something that happened. In the real world that is very clearly false.
Even a mediocre scientist accounts for blindingly obvious confounding factors. A better scientist accounts for things that don't even seem like they could possibly be confounding factors just because they are differences. Neither of those appear to have happened here. They assume that reporting rates are predictable for different circumstances just by guessing, which is not a reliable assumption.
And on top of all of that, this report is likely going to be used as a giant war banner in the police union's fight to reduce the use of body cameras. And it just slides right over the fact that cameras actually do see police committing crimes and abuses for which they then don't get significantly punished and which would never have been uncovered otherwise.
It arbitrarily privileges "reported uses of force" as the target of attention rather than "witnessed crimes and other violations". Why? The report isn't titled "Evaluating the Effects of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Uses of Force: A Randomized Controlled Trial". It's called "Evaluating the Effects of Police Body-Worn Cameras: A Randomized Controlled Trial" full stop. And yet they are clearly ignoring huge categories of observed malfeasance in order to tell a particular dismissive story.
> I'm critiquing a political abuse of a bogus study and also the bogus study itself...
It's disappointing but not surprising that you accuse them of "political abuse". Your own criticism seems clearly political because you start with the premise that it's literally impossible that they are correct.
I actually agree with you that the results here feel suspect because they run so counter to my expectations, but I find it sad that this is how you put forward your agenda.
> Bullshit. I'm telling you that correlation doesn't imply causation and rather than saying "oh yeah, I heard that once somewhere, it was probably important" your response is "but physics jargon".
"Correlation is not causation" is a great response to erroneous conclusions drawn from studies constructed to establish correlation. It's a really poor response to a study designed to establish causation. If you believe that it is in general impossible to establish causation, then you are indeed just making an epistemological argument.
If you have a problem with the construction of the study and believe it doesn't establish causation, because of X, Y, and Z, then provide that criticism. Don't assert that it's wrong because measurement is impossible. Even if we accept that claim as true, it's still a useless criticism because it means the best we can do is our indirect measurements and we are left with no option except to optimize for those.
> They are measuring one thing and making, and these next words are key, an unreasonable leap onto something very different.
It's not an unreasonable leap. A priori, many people would agree that a reduction in police use of force would result in a reduction of reports of use of force by both police and civilians. Previous studies indicated the same a posteriori. Clearly many people find the leap very reasonable. I believe the only reason you find it unreasonable is that you don't like the conclusion it leads to in this study.
> In your boson world nobody ever doesn't report something that happened. In the real world that is very clearly false.
Not sure what you're talking about. Erroneous measurements happen all the time in the scientific world. It was really hard for scientists to prove the existence of the Higgs boson because it's so hard to even detect.
> They assume that reporting rates are predictable for different circumstances just by guessing, which is not a reliable assumption.
Where does this claim come from? Did I miss something where the authors claimed that reporting would definitely be 100% consistent?
And where does the support for your claim that reported rates are essentially constant regardless of actual rates come from?
> And on top of all of that, this report is likely going to be used as a giant war banner in the police union's fight to reduce the use of body cameras....
And here you go with the actual justification for your criticism. You don't have a scientific criticism. You have a political one. You want to discredit the study because you don't like the conclusion.
Maybe this study is flawed, but you don't establish that by asserting that it's impossible to even measure or by claiming (without any evidence of your own) that there's no link between actual use of force and reports of use of force.
> It arbitrarily privileges "reported uses of force" as the target of attention rather than "witnessed crimes and other violations".
Exactly how do you imagine that you would track "witnessed crimes and other violations" in absence of reports of those things?
It's disappointing but not surprising that you accuse them of "political abuse". Your own criticism seems clearly political because you start with the premise that it's literally impossible that they are correct.
I actually agree with you that the results here feel suspect because they run so counter to my expectations, but I find it sad that this is how you put forward your agenda.
> Bullshit. I'm telling you that correlation doesn't imply causation and rather than saying "oh yeah, I heard that once somewhere, it was probably important" your response is "but physics jargon".
"Correlation is not causation" is a great response to erroneous conclusions drawn from studies constructed to establish correlation. It's a really poor response to a study designed to establish causation. If you believe that it is in general impossible to establish causation, then you are indeed just making an epistemological argument.
If you have a problem with the construction of the study and believe it doesn't establish causation, because of X, Y, and Z, then provide that criticism. Don't assert that it's wrong because measurement is impossible. Even if we accept that claim as true, it's still a useless criticism because it means the best we can do is our indirect measurements and we are left with no option except to optimize for those.
> They are measuring one thing and making, and these next words are key, an unreasonable leap onto something very different.
It's not an unreasonable leap. A priori, many people would agree that a reduction in police use of force would result in a reduction of reports of use of force by both police and civilians. Previous studies indicated the same a posteriori. Clearly many people find the leap very reasonable. I believe the only reason you find it unreasonable is that you don't like the conclusion it leads to in this study.
> In your boson world nobody ever doesn't report something that happened. In the real world that is very clearly false.
Not sure what you're talking about. Erroneous measurements happen all the time in the scientific world. It was really hard for scientists to prove the existence of the Higgs boson because it's so hard to even detect.
> They assume that reporting rates are predictable for different circumstances just by guessing, which is not a reliable assumption.
Where does this claim come from? Did I miss something where the authors claimed that reporting would definitely be 100% consistent?
And where does the support for your claim that reported rates are essentially constant regardless of actual rates come from?
> And on top of all of that, this report is likely going to be used as a giant war banner in the police union's fight to reduce the use of body cameras....
And here you go with the actual justification for your criticism. You don't have a scientific criticism. You have a political one. You want to discredit the study because you don't like the conclusion.
Maybe this study is flawed, but you don't establish that by asserting that it's impossible to even measure or by claiming (without any evidence of your own) that there's no link between actual use of force and reports of use of force.
> It arbitrarily privileges "reported uses of force" as the target of attention rather than "witnessed crimes and other violations".
Exactly how do you imagine that you would track "witnessed crimes and other violations" in absence of reports of those things?
> you start with the premise that it's literally impossible that they are correct.
I'm going to let you drift here, because you're continuing to respond to strawman interpretations of me rather than what I actually said and I'm not interested in the game of shifting goalposts.
I'm going to let you drift here, because you're continuing to respond to strawman interpretations of me rather than what I actually said and I'm not interested in the game of shifting goalposts.
”This is literally impossible.”
That’s a direct quote. It is exactly what you said and it was exactly the first thing you said.
Accusing me of “strawman interpretations” is just dishonest, but quite in keeping with the rest of your comments here.
That’s a direct quote. It is exactly what you said and it was exactly the first thing you said.
Accusing me of “strawman interpretations” is just dishonest, but quite in keeping with the rest of your comments here.
I agree... at some point, when analyzing a topic, we need to prune the decision tree leading to some tentative conclusions, even if some subtrees might not be 100% verifiably invalid. Our science is imperfect, reporting is imperfect, and very few (if any) complete-information scenarios exist.
I've been wondering about that.
What if they gave a third group a prominently visible dummy body cam that did not record, and the police officer knew it, but to others it would look like there was a body cam?
And possibly a fourth group a working body cam that was barely visible to others?
With variations like these, one might be able to tease out more information about the causal relationships.
What if they gave a third group a prominently visible dummy body cam that did not record, and the police officer knew it, but to others it would look like there was a body cam?
And possibly a fourth group a working body cam that was barely visible to others?
With variations like these, one might be able to tease out more information about the causal relationships.
Yeah. I agree they could have done more to capture the factors here better.
I wonder about the "dummy" body cam, though. I feel like that's an obvious group to include for the sake of teasing out contributing factors, but I also wonder if that would have gotten them sued. "You were supposed to be filming but somehow the footage is missing and now you claim it wasn't even a real camera?!"
I wonder about the "dummy" body cam, though. I feel like that's an obvious group to include for the sake of teasing out contributing factors, but I also wonder if that would have gotten them sued. "You were supposed to be filming but somehow the footage is missing and now you claim it wasn't even a real camera?!"
They don't get sued (successfully) for having body cams and actually destroying evidence when it suits them, so they should be pretty safe with not collecting it at all.
I only briefly scanned the published paper [1], but I saw no mention made about whether or not the officers knew this study was happening to their teams. Does anyone know if the study was blind?
[1] http://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/static/files/supplementary-material...
[1] http://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/static/files/supplementary-material...
Were the officers who were not filming also not wearing cameras?
[deleted]
I think for police cameras, and the idea of being watched as a catalyst for better behavior, the focus of behavior modification is misplaced. IMO police in America have become separated from the rest of society, through hubris, militarization, or some perceived "us versus them" thinking. They appear to see their behavior, regardless of what that behavior is, as protecting the public, and stopping others from breaking the law. The police as an institution have placed themselves in a sphere of superiority, not beholden to others. We must work to bring the idea of police officer closer to that of citizen, stop the militarization, stop the us versus them thinking, and teach officers that they are to peaceful officers that serve and protect, not an authoritarian paramilitary force, immune from society's laws and norms.
By the time the police arrived, my attacker escaped in my car and the first words out of the sergeants mouth was “cut the crap, quit jerking us around, what really happened?”
Sure enough I was in a jurisdiction that only two months prior was equipped with vest cameras (due to community outrage over an execution style killing of a 21 year old black male pulled over with a phone the police thought was a gun). As an officer of the court myself I was beyond dismayed and obtained 2 different copies of police video from the scene...wouldn’t you know both officers vest videos were redacted and specifically edited out the audio of the sergeant’s first words to me and the sergeant’s video didn’t exist. The dvds even say redacted right on them, and I knew before I even watched, which is funny because I had to pay ~$100 for the video, basically paying for the time it took for the department to watch and redact the 1 part I really wanted.
How would such a system have any effect of police officer behavior?