Police warning each other about body cam recordings

Great Debates
81

Assuming there is some validity to those complaints, there’s really no comparison with the cops. The cops need body cameras because of two important factors:

  1. Cops are extremely powerful and privileged in the justice system and life in general. We have special laws regarding justified self-defense with lethal force when dealing with the police. We privilege the word of police officers above the word of civilians, to the extent that our presumption of police honesty goes far above and beyond our presumption of civilian innocence in court - a cop’s say-so is enough to put you behind bars. We trust the police with these powers.
  2. It’s been shown that this trust is often misplaced. How often? We have no idea, there’s no stat tracking on this for some godawful reason. But we know it’s true in enough cases that an entire subset of the population feels the need to sit their kids down and give them a long, serious talk about how not to get their lives ruined or ended by the police, and common enough to completely destroy the trust that damn near a supermajority of that subgroup has in the police.

And of course, that’s ignoring the whole “Boss is coming, look busy” issue.

It doesn’t matter for the argument. I may feel personal sympathy for Darren Wilson, but that’s one case. Just one. How many more are there? It’s like saying, “We should make reporting rape harder, look at all these fake rape threats,” and when you’re called on it, pointing out that false rape accusations are really rare while the vast majority of all rape cases never get convictions because of how hard it is to prosecute, you point to the Duke Lacrosse Team, then you have missed the point. It’s not that it never happens. It’s that the risk of one so firmly outweighs the risk of the other that your view of the issue would have to be basically exactly backwards to make the statements you have. What do you think is more common - corrupt or incompetent cops getting away with assault/theft/rape/murder by hiding behind the badge, or good cops losing their jobs over false murder accusations?

Then what’s the problem? What do you think the odds are these cops see any kind of pushback on this? Hey look, a forum thread where people complain about the police equivalent of a restaurant panicking about a health inspection (which is kind of fucking shitty!). Oh nooooes, the poor cops. We might hurt their feelings if any of them read this specific thread. :rolleyes:

If you’re unwilling to read my posts and base your responses on what I actually said, why even bother responding?

Hmm. Court of internet opinion.

Can we shoot them, then get away with no punishment because the actual court of law thinks that this is okay?

No?

The fuck the court of internet opinion. It ain’t worth shit.

I want good cops. Cops who take the immense responsibility and power we grant them seriously. Not “Boss is coming, look busy” cops. Not “oh shit, black guy tells me he has a gun somewhere, then follows my commands, gotta open fire” cops. Cops who take the immense power and privilege they are given seriously. Your constant uncharitable interpretations of my position have about as much to do with what I actually think as the aforementioned fish on a bicycle screaming “IT’S RAINING MEN”.

82

You have the power ever single second to kill someone. Get yourself a gun, a knife, drive your car into a crowded school yard, etc. In case you were wondering the most people who kill other people aren’t cops.

Actually, we are pretty close (if not possible to do so now) to be able to have a computer scan video and pick out the things we want to pick out. e.g You will soon see videos on YouTube of the ‘Best of Police Nose-picking’.

Make it mandatory for everyone to wear a body cam, not just the police. Have it stream live to centralized data locations where the video is scanned for 'unlawful (and ‘deviant’) behavior). You can even have it automatically delete if nothing is found.
A simple solution that not only stops the police from misbehaving, but everyone else as well. Frankly, it would make the police somewhat redundant. Tickets would show up automatically. If you don’t comply, then robocop would come after you. Plus, if your feed stops sensors would calculate your last location, check the last bit of your feed, and send someone to either come to your aid or collect you for turning off your camera (actually, we could use the feeds of others to locate you). Utopia!

83

And if I do, I will generally be arrested and thrown in prison almost immediately, if not executed. Meanwhile, Jeronimo Yanez is a free man. So is Timothy Loehmann. You missed the “with impunity” part.

84

This completely misses the point.

85

I imagine that you understand why the 4th Amendment would preclude such a requirement for the citizenry, right?

86

I think MikeF’s post is a pretty good explanation of things from the officers’ point of view. It’s just a reminder to do things by the book in terms of procedure and to avoid a momentary lapse in judgement with a stupid comment that could unnecessarily cause controversy.

87

Laws can be changed. If the goal is to stop criminal activity, then that should apply to everyone, not just the police, because the police are not the primary law breakers.

88

It is a shame that cops need something like this to stay on good behavior. Unfortunately they think they are above the law, have laws in place to further shield them from wrong doing, and refuse to turn in bad cops.

89

The “I’m hot” comments aren’t reminders to behave. They are reminders that every comment made by anyone will be recorded (whether they are visible or not) and be subject to questioning by both investigators and attorneys. And I’m sure a defense attorney would nevvvvver take an officers comment out of context.:rolleyes:

The cameras serve more to protect the officer & assist prosecution. Defense attys for drunk drivers won’t contest a case that they know the police have video of the field sobriety test. And it’s hard for dirtbags to win multi-million dollar judgements for abuse when the officer(s) behavior is on camera.

Is it irrational for officers to be leery of what they say on camera? Not at all. A Seattle police officer was disciplined for using cuss words on the dash cam…while in his car with the windows up while talking to his partner. I bet that none of you are being audio recorded as well as video recorded.

The one aspect of privacy that everyone seems to be overlooking is the rights of those being recorded. You want officers recorded? Fine. But what about that family experiencing one of their worst moments? What about their privacy rights?

Budget Player Cadet;
Do you have sympathy for the officers who were fired and/or disciplined in the Freddie Gray case? The judge not only cleared them, but excoriated the states attorney for bringing such a weak case against them. Where’s your sympathy for them? Simply admit you hate cops regardless of facts, and nothing will change that.

90

That’s a goal. Another goal is to protect the Constitutional rights of our citizens.

91

I believe it’s common for the police department policies to take into account these situations. For example, SLC PD’s does exactly this:

92

To what end? Shouldn’t everyone comply with the law, whatever that is? Isn’t that the corresponding ‘responsibility’ that goes hand in hand with ‘rights’?

93

We have rights whether we are obedient or not. Hence, “unalienable”. We are not required to render observance in order to get them, they are ours by birth.

94

Unless you are a cop, or employed in a workplace somewhere, etc.

95

The goal is to give accountability to people with immense privilege. The goal is specifically to stop criminal activity by law enforcement, because criminal activity by law enforcement has a disproportionate negative effect on the citizens and the ability of the police force to do their jobs, and because the very responsibilities we place on police officers means that they are often without accountability.

You clearly missed the point of my earlier post, and continue to miss the point of why this matters. When I said “with impunity” I meant it. If I shoot an unarmed person, and all we have to go on is my word that it was self-defense, then I’m probably going to prison. If a cop does it, they probably won’t even face disciplinary measures at their workplace; the justice system will take them at their word because they’re cops. That’s why body cams are so important. And yes, this would also help exonerate good cops who are falsely accused.

You mean the officers who accused an innocent man of a crime, threw him in the back of their cruiser without following necessary safety precautions, and he subsequently died as a result? The officers in whose case the coroner ruled the death a homicide? The officers who were cleared of all charges after the fact, despite the fact that at least one of them obviously had to bear some responsibility for this man’s death?

No, I do not have any goddamn sympathy for them!

They are part of the problem. Through either negligence or malice on their part, an innocent man was killed. And yet, no justice was served. By anyone. A man died in police custody due to police negligence (or malice) and nobody suffered any consequences for it. At least in the Darren Wilson case you could legitimately make some argument that Wilson got screwed by the system, even if that one case doesn’t actually amount to anywhere near the sheer volume of police misconduct we’ve all seen which has gone completely untouched and unpunished. This, though? This is like complaining about how unfair the legal system is by pointing to how poor innocent OJ Simpson was put through legal hell under trumped-up charges. :mad:

I will keep repeating myself: this is not true. I do not hate all cops. Are you saying I’m lying?

96

Considering that 30-50% of homicides go unsolved (and then some people get wrongly convicted), I’d say you have a good chance of 1: not being caught, and 2: not being convicted (only a 70% conviction rate). If you plan it at least somewhat, I’d suggest that your chance of getting caught is pretty marginal.

I’m not missing the point, btw. I think you are. The person who is killed doesn’t really care that it is a cop or anyone else doing the killing. The fact that they are dead is the only thing that really matters.

97

And if I am a cop, it doesn’t matter if I am caught, because they’d have to prove not only that it wasn’t justified self-defense (and they are extremely likely to take my word for it because I am a cop) but that I didn’t “feel threatened”, a definition vague enough to justify the murder of Philando Castile and Tamir Rice. Cops are by and large granted the presumption of truth, above and beyond the presumption of innocence a person like you or me has. These privileges are what make body cams so damn important. Without video, Michael Slager probably would have gotten away with murder with no consequences, just because of this presumption of truth. He still ended up with a hung jury. The privileges and powers we invest in the police make accountability very difficult without direct video evidence.

98

There aren’t any 4th Amendment implications in employment condititioned on the wearing of a camera that I’m aware of. Don’t want to have to wear a camera, then quit. Do you understand how that is significantly different from your radical proposal that we “Make it mandatory for everyone to wear a body cam, not just the police. Have it stream live to centralized data locations where the video is scanned for 'unlawful (and ‘deviant’) behavior).”?

99

[QUOTE=Budget Player Cadet]
You mean the officers who accused an innocent man of a crime,
[/quote]

He had been involved in 20 criminal cases with 5 outstanding, including a drug possession charge (remember what he was arrested for in this incident?). Sounds like a real altar boy. :rolleyes:

This statement shows your knowledge about LE & specifically this case. A “cruiser” is a sedan, usually a Ford Crown Victoria or a Chevrolet Caprice. Gray was placed into a van.

The seat belt policy went into effect six days prior to this incident. Can you prove that this policy was made known to the officers at the time of this incident? Additionally, when suspects are violently combative the officers are no longer required to restrain the suspect, as entering the van would place the officers in danger.

First off, homicide is a legal classification that is used to say that a death wasn’t due to natural causes, and was caused by a person(s). That can include the person themselves. The death investigation (of which the coroners report is just part of) will determine if any laws were broken by the death & who might be responsible if it is a crime.

Also, remember what he was being arrested for. He was seen making a drug deal. He was then pursued by officers. What do you think he did with the drugs he had on him? The toxicology report indicated that he had opiates & marijuana in his system at the time of his death. Simple logic would indicate that he destroyed the evidence by ingesting it.

And what can happen when one ingests a large quantity of opiates? It can result in a seizure. The other prisoner in the van initially said that he heard Gray banging around on the other side of the van, yet didn’t say it was the result of a “rough ride” as some called it. Actions have consequences, and Gray faced them. Why can’t you accept that, or are you against personal responsibility?

Lastly, this garbage about the police being so bad that blacks feel the need to warn their children about the police is exactly that - garbage. So far this year 354 people in Chicago have been killed, and 1662 have been wounded by gunfire. Of the 354, police were involved in 8 of them, and the same for those shot & wounded. So using simple logic, tell me who the threat is to the black community?

100

Yeah, police hate BWC’s. And they’re used to keep them in line.

Those of you who believe that, put yourself in the shoes of these officers who were accused of throwing a suspect off a bridge: