It’s operated by the Memphis Police Department and it would make sense that they monitor on-going police chases. Look at the direction the camera is pointing. The beating is the center of the image so there is a good chance it was specifically aimed because of the events unfolding.
I’m just throwing out a question at this point that should be asked by the media. they should be asking for the time just prior to what we saw in the video from that camera.
You’re asking me what a member of the Memphis Police Department would do if they witnessed a beating? Is that your question? They just fired 2 other officers for being in the vicinity and not acting on the events.
Maybe, just maybe, the camera is pointed in that direction because that’s where that camera is pointing.
Maybe. What’s your point? You don’t think the question should be asked?
I didn’t see a question.
post 215
I’m wondering if the street camera was monitored at the time and if they can go after that person too.
You responded to it.
On what basis could “they” go after a camera operator?
You’d already answered it. Forget it, I’ll drop the hijack. Wonder away.
If they’re operating as part of the police department then they would have the same responsibility as the other officers witnessing it. If it was actively monitored then it should have been communicated to someone in charge. They in turn would use the radio system to interact with ALL the officers at the scene.
Again, they just fired 2 officers who were there and did nothing. It’s a simple question that should be asked and not an indictment. It’s an extension of what would have been asked regarding the additional officers who were fired.
Yes, I’m asking what a member of the police department would do if he was REMOTELY OPERATING A CAMERA FROM AFAR. Teleport himself to the scene and intervene? Call them up on the radio and yell “Hey, I can see you!” Or record the ongoing crime for later use in prosecution?
ETA: How the hell does the hypothetical camera operator call up the officers WHEN THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEATING A GUY?
Right at the beginning of the first video the pole camera is pointed up the street, then it swings around to point at the beating. It’s being manually controlled.
The operator should immediately report it to a senior officer, who would take action through the chain of command. There’s probably not much chance this would happen quickly enough to stop it, but it would still be interesting to ask if the operator started that process, and then what happened. Perhaps this was a routine type of thing for this unit that the pole camera operator and even senior officers were complicit in covering up.
Yes, if I were the camera operator, my comment would be: “There was nothing I could do, it was happening so fast, but I made sure the camera was aimed at the situation to make as complete a record as possible.”
If that were the case, they’d turn the camera away instead of keeping the action well framed the entire time.
Is it possible the camera just follows the action on it’s own? It’s pretty common for PTZ cameras to have some type of motion tracking.
How many cameras do they have? If they have more than a few dozen, it would be hard for someone (or multiple someones) to actively monitor all of them.
Would that be the case if it were just a civilian employee? I mean, I would hope anyone that has any involvement with their camera system would be required to report any incidents of police brutality as soon as they notice it, but I really don’t know.
If someone was actively operating that camera, I’m curious if the PD is trying to keep their identity private. There’s an all-to-large group of people that would like to discourage this [the recording] from happening again.
My thought on the whole camera operator discussion is if it was manually aimed at the incident as it unfolded, it was not to capture the crime of the cops beating Nichols, but of Nichols resisting arrest, and to capture evidence the cops were justified in their actions. There is likely a written procedure to keep the cameras aimed at such events, to protect cops, not civilians.
I was wondering if it was motion or sound activated.
If there were an operator, I would expect there would be SOME record, if only the pressing of a button/key to designate that a specific camera recorded an “incident” at a certain time. More likely, would be the “reporting” of an incident in some manner to alert whomever might assign additional resources.
And we know that this hypothetical camera operator did not follow this hypothetical action because… why again?
I’m sure you’ll all be shocked, but it appears that the five MPD officers who killed Tyre … may have told a less incriminating story when they completed their police reports:
https://news.yahoo.com/initial-police-report-tyre-nichols-130128210.html
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A police report written hours after officers beat Tyre Nichols was starkly at odds with what videos have since revealed, making no mention of the powerful kicks and punches unleashed on Nichols and instead claiming that he was violent.
I know, right?
It was clearly manually controlled from on the way it moved.
I don’t really understand why you’re resistant to asking the question. Have you watched the video from the pole-mounted camera? It was obvious immediately that something very bad was happening - if the camera operator did not report it to a senior officer right away, that’s troubling.
Because of the bolded part in the initial question about a camera operator:
I’m wondering if the street camera was monitored at the time and if they can go after that person too.
There was just too much “what if” in that supposition, with no knowledge of what actually happened. I’ve never been overly fond of the technique of Just Asking Questions.
As far as the camera operator issue is concerned, I would suspect he was notified about police activity in the vicinity and just performed his job by trying to capture the activity on camera. The notification likely came from radio reports from the officers involved.
As far as his liability goes, I would suspect that ended when he turned the camera to the action. That is what he would be paid for. He did his job. I truly doubt his job is to notify the police about a situation the police are already involved with. How is he supposed to know what is going on? He only knew the police were already involved so trying to get the police more involved doesn’t make much sense (at least not to me). I think at the time more units had already been dispatched, what else is there to do except getting it on camera?