Sounds like a good idea to me.
https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all
QuotePolice Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win For All
October 9, 2013
Download the report (PDF 130KB)
Introduction
When a New York judge found that the NYPD's stop and frisk tactics violated the constitutional rights of New Yorkers, one of the remedies she ordered was for the department to begin testing wearable police cameras, sparking debate and discussion of the technology there.
These "on-officer recording systems" (also called "body cams" or "cop cams") are small, pager-sized cameras that clip on to an officer's uniform or are worn as a headset, and record audio and video of the officer's interactions with the public. We have heard reports of police body cameras being deployed in numerous cities, and one prominent manufacturer told NBC that it had sold them to "hundreds of departments."
The ACLU has commented on police body cameras in the media several times over the years (and in stories surrounding the stop and frisk ruling), but the ACLU's views on this technology are a little more complicated than can be conveyed through quotes in a news story.
Although we generally take a dim view of the proliferation of surveillance cameras in American life, police on-body cameras are different because of their potential to serve as a check against the abuse of power by police officers. Historically, there was no documentary evidence of most encounters between police officers and the public, and due to the volatile nature of those encounters, this often resulted in radically divergent accounts of incidents. Cameras have the potential to be a win-win, helping protect the public against police misconduct, and at the same time helping protect police against false accusations of abuse.
We're against pervasive government surveillance, but when cameras primarily serve the function of allowing public monitoring of the government instead of the other way around, we generally regard that as a good thing. While we have opposed government video surveillance of public places, for example, we have supported the installation of video cameras on police car dashboards, in prisons, and during interrogations.
At the same time, body cameras have more of a potential to invade privacy than those deployments. Police officers enter people's homes and encounter bystanders, suspects, and victims in a wide variety of sometimes stressful and extreme situations.
For the ACLU, the challenge of on-officer cameras is the tension between their potential to invade privacy and their strong benefit in promoting police accountability. Overall, we think they can be a win-win—but only if they are deployed within a framework of strong policies to ensure they protect the public without becoming yet another system for routine surveillance of the public, and maintain public confidence in the integrity of those privacy protections. Without such a framework, their accountability benefits would not exceed their privacy risks.
On-officer cameras are a significant technology that implicates important, if sometimes conflicting, values. We will have to watch carefully to see how they are deployed and what their effects are over time, but in this paper we outline our current thinking about and recommendations for the technology. These recommendations are subject to change.
Control over recordings
Perhaps most importantly, policies and technology must be designed to ensure that police cannot "edit on the fly" — i.e., choose which encounters to record with limitless discretion. If police are free to turn the cameras on and off as they please, the cameras' role in providing a check and balance against police power will shrink and they will no longer become a net benefit.
The primary question is how that should be implemented.
Purely from an accountability perspective, the ideal policy for body-worn cameras would be for continuous recording throughout a police officer's shift, eliminating any possibility that an officer could evade the recording of abuses committed on duty. Of course, just as body cameras can invade the privacy of many innocent citizens, continuous deployment would similarly impinge on police officers when they are sitting in a station house or patrol car shooting the breeze — getting to know each other as humans, discussing precinct politics, etc. We have some sympathy for police on this; continuous recording might feel as stressful and oppressive in those situations as it would for any employee subject to constant recording by their supervisor. True, police officers with their extraordinary powers are not regular employees, and in theory officers' privacy, like citizens', could be protected by appropriate policies (as outlined below) that ensure that 99% of video would be deleted in relatively short order without ever being reviewed. But on a psychological level, such assurances are rarely enough. There is also the danger that the technology would be misused by police supervisors against whistleblowers or union activists — for example, by scrutinizing video records to find minor violations to use against an officer.
If the cameras do not record continuously, that would place them under officer control, which would create the danger that they could be manipulated by some officers, undermining their core purpose of detecting police misconduct. This has sometimes been an issue with patrol car "dashcams" — for example, in the case of two Seattle men who filed a claim for excessive force and wrongful arrest. Parts of the arrest were captured by a dashcam, but parts that should have been captured were mysteriously missing. And with body cams, two Oakland police officers were disciplined after one of the officers' cameras was turned off during an incident.
The balance that needs to be struck is to ensure that officers can't manipulate the video record, while also ensuring that officers are not subjected to a relentless regime of surveillance without any opportunity for shelter from constant monitoring.
One possibility is that some form of effective automated trigger could be developed that would allow for minimization of recording while capturing any fraught encounters — based, for example, on detection of raised voices, types of movement, etc. When it comes to dashcams, the devices are often configured to record whenever a car's siren or lights are activated, which provides a rough and somewhat (though not entirely) non-discretionary measure of when a police officer is engaged in an encounter that is likely to be a problem. That policy is not applicable to body cams, however, since there is no equivalent to flashing lights. And it's not clear that any artificial intelligence system in the foreseeable future will be smart enough to reliably detect encounters that should be recorded. In any case, it is not an option with today's technology.
If a police department is to place its cameras under officer control, then it must put in place tightly effective means of limiting officers' ability to choose which encounters to record. That can only take the form of a department-wide policy that mandates that police turn on recording during every interaction with the public.
And this requirement must have some teeth associated with it — not only a risk of disciplinary action but also perhaps an exclusionary rule for any evidence obtained in an unrecorded encounter (for police who have been issued the cameras, unless there is an exigency to justify the failure to record). Another means of enforcement might be to stipulate that in any instance in which an officer wearing a camera is accused of misconduct, a failure to record that incident would create an evidentiary presumption against the officer.
Limiting the threat to privacy from cop cams
Most of the discussion around police recording has focused on its oversight potential. But that is only one of the significant interests implicated by recording. Equally important are the privacy interests and fair trial rights of individuals who are recorded. Ideally there would be a way to minimize data collection to only what was reasonably needed, but there's currently no technological way to do so.
Police body cameras mean that many instances of entirely innocent behavior (on the part of both officers and the public) will be recorded, with significant privacy implications. Perhaps most troubling is that some recordings will be made inside people's homes, whenever police enter — including in instances of consensual entry (e.g., responding to a burglary call, voluntarily participating in an investigation) and such things as domestic violence calls. In the case of dashcams, we have also seen video of particular incidents released for no important public reason, and instead serving only to embarrass individuals. Examples have included DUI stops of celebrities and ordinary individuals whose troubled and/or intoxicated behavior has been widely circulated and now immortalized online. The potential for such merely embarrassing and titillating releases of video is significantly increased by body cams.
Therefore it is vital that any deployment of these cameras be accompanied by good privacy policies so that the benefits of the technology are not outweighed by invasions of privacy. The core elements of such a policy follow.
Notice to citizens
Most privacy protections will have to come from restrictions on subsequent retention and use of the recordings. There are, however, a couple of things that can be done at the point of recording.
Recording should be limited to uniformed officers and marked vehicles, so people know what to expect. An exception should be made for SWAT raids and similar planned uses of force when they involve non-uniformed officers.
Officers should be required, wherever practicable, to notify people that they are being recorded (similar to existing law for dashcams in some states such as Washington). One possibility departments might consider is for officers to wear an easily visible pin or sticker saying "lapel camera in operation" or words to that effect.
Although if the preceding policies are properly followed it should not be possible, it is especially important that the cameras not be used to surreptitiously gather intelligence information based on First Amendment protected speech, associations, or religion.
Recording in the home
Because of the uniquely intrusive nature of police recordings made inside private homes, officers should be required to be especially sure to provide clear notice of a camera when entering a home, except in circumstances such as an emergency or a raid. Departments might also consider a policy under which officers ask residents whether they wish for a camera to be turned off before they enter a home in non-exigent circumstances. (Citizen requests for cameras to be turned off should themselves be recorded to document such requests.) Cameras should never be turned off in SWAT raids and similar police actions.
Retention
Data should be retained no longer than necessary for the purpose for which it was collected. For the vast majority of police encounters with the public, there is no reason to preserve video evidence, and those recordings therefore should be deleted relatively quickly.
Retention periods should be measured in weeks not years, and video should be deleted after that period unless a recording has been flagged. Once a recording has been flagged, it would then switch to a longer retention schedule (such as the three-year period currently in effect in Washington State).
These policies should be posted online on the department's website, so that people who have encounters with police know how long they have to file a complaint or request access to footage.
Flagging should occur automatically for any incident:
involving a use of force;
that leads to detention or arrest; or
where either a formal or informal complaint has been registered.
Any subject of a recording should be able to flag a recording, even if not filing a complaint or opening an investigation.
The police department (including internal investigations and supervisors) and third parties should also be able to flag an incident if they have some basis to believe police misconduct has occurred or have reasonable suspicion that the video contains evidence of a crime. We do not want the police or gadflies to be able to routinely flag all recordings in order to circumvent the retention limit.
If any useful evidence is obtained during an authorized use of a recording (see below), the recording would then be retained in the same manner as any other evidence gathered during an investigation.
Back-end systems to manage video data must be configured to retain the data, delete it after the retention period expires, prevent deletion by individual officers, and provide an unimpeachable audit trail to protect chain of custody, just as with any evidence.
Use of Recordings
The ACLU supports the use of cop cams for the purpose of police accountability and oversight. It's vital that this technology not become a backdoor for any kind of systematic surveillance or tracking of the public. Since the records will be made, police departments need to be subject to strong rules around how they are used. The use of recordings should be allowed only in internal and external investigations of misconduct, and where the police have reasonable suspicion that a recording contains evidence of a crime. Otherwise, there is no reason that stored footage should even be reviewed by a human being before its retention period ends and it is permanently deleted.
Subject Access
People recorded by cop cams should have access to, and the right to make copies of, those recordings, for however long the government maintains copies of them. That should also apply to disclosure to a third party if the subject consents, or to criminal defense lawyers seeking relevant evidence.
Public Disclosure
When should the public have access to cop cam videos held by the authorities? Public disclosure of government records can be a tricky issue pitting two important values against each other: the need for government oversight and openness, and privacy. Those values must be carefully balanced by policymakers. One way to do that is to attempt to minimize invasiveness when possible:
Good technological controls
It is important that close attention be paid to the systems that handle the video data generated by these cameras.
It is vital that public confidence in the integrity of body camera privacy protections be maintained. We don't want crime victims to be afraid to call for help because of fears that video of their officer interactions will become public or reach the wrong party. Confidence can only be created if good policies are put in place and backed up by good technology.
As the devices are adopted by police forces around the nation, studies should be done to measure their impact. Only very limited studies have been done so far. Are domestic violence victims hesitating to call the police for help by the prospect of having a camera-wearing police officer in their home, or are they otherwise affected? Are privacy abuses of the technology happening, and if so what kind and how often?
Although fitting police forces with cameras will generate an enormous amount of video footage and raises many tricky issues, if the recording, retention, access, use, and technology policies that we outline above are followed, very little of that footage will ever be viewed or retained, and at the same time those cameras will provide an important protection against police abuse. We will be monitoring the impact of cameras closely, and if good policies and practices do not become standard, or the technology has negative side effects we have failed to anticipate, we will have to reevaluate our position on police body cameras.
Public disclosure of any recording should be allowed with the consent of the subjects, as discussed above.
Redaction of video records should be used when feasible — blurring or blacking out of portions of video and/or distortion of audio to obscure the identity of subjects. If recordings are redacted, they should be discloseable.
Unredacted, unflagged recordings should not be publicly disclosed without consent of the subject. These are recordings where there is no indication of police misconduct or evidence of a crime, so the public oversight value is low. States may need to examine how such a policy interacts with their state open records laws.
Flagged recordings are those for which there is the highest likelihood of misconduct, and thus the ones where public oversight is most needed. Redaction of disclosed recordings is preferred, but when that is not feasible, unredacted flagged recordings should be publicly discloseable, because in such cases the need for oversight outweighs the privacy interests at stake.
Systems should be architected to ensure that segments of video cannot be destroyed. A recent case in Maryland illustrates the problem: surveillance video of an incident in which officers were accused of beating a student disappeared (the incident was also filmed by a bystander). An officer or department that has engaged in abuse or other wrongdoing will have a strong incentive to destroy evidence of that wrongdoing, so technology systems should be designed to prevent any tampering with such video.
In addition, all access to video records should be automatically recorded with immutable audit logs.
Systems should ensure that data retention and destruction schedules are properly maintained.
It is also important for systems be architected to ensure that video is only accessed when permitted according to the policies we've described above, and that rogue copies cannot be made. Officers should not be able to, for example, pass around video of a drunk city council member, or video generated by an officer responding to a call in a topless bar, or video of a citizen providing information on a local street gang.
no prob with this :thumbsup:
These cameras would defend civil rights only if there is a way to ensure that such recordings will always be available. If these recordings only surface when they support police officer's story, and disappear when they don't, then the advantage of having them is dubious.
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 05:31:24 PM
These cameras would defend civil rights only if there is a way to ensure that such recordings will always be available. If these recordings only surface when they support police officer's story, and disappear when they don't, then the advantage of having them is dubious.
You'll just have to trust us.
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 05:31:24 PM
These cameras would defend civil rights only if there is a way to ensure that such recordings will always be available. If these recordings only surface when they support police officer's story, and disappear when they don't, then the advantage of having them is dubious.
:mellow: If you read the article, you'd have noticed that the ACLU covers that in depth.
Not sure I want to go too in depth with this one, only to see the discussion falter.
Body-worn video has been "coming" for a few years now. Heck I first saw it on a cop in Dawson City in late 2009. I'm told EPS has been testing it.
The ACLU position comes at it from a very one-sided approach - that BWV is there to watch over the police. It has that purpose, of course. But that purpose is actually outweighed by the huge investigative tool that it would be. No loner do you have a cop on the stand struggling to remember what admissions the Accused made to him one year ago - now we have it on high-def video.
I'm not sure if the ACLU is recommending that BWV be "always on". It seems to say that would be preferable, but then does talk about options. I'm someone who has a great deal of my work day recorded - namely everything I say in court. But to have everything I say, period, recorded in a day strikes me as Orwellian. Surely the better approach is to have the cop in charge of when the camera is activated, and then have clear policies about when it is to be activated (namely - on first contact with a suspect).
So, in short - BWV will have the effect of helping to remove any police excessive force - but only as a side effect. It will also have a tremendous effect to ensure convictions. :thumbsup:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 09, 2013, 05:35:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 05:31:24 PM
These cameras would defend civil rights only if there is a way to ensure that such recordings will always be available. If these recordings only surface when they support police officer's story, and disappear when they don't, then the advantage of having them is dubious.
:mellow: If you read the article, you'd have noticed that the ACLU covers that in depth.
I'm a commentator, not a reader. :rolleyes:
This is also an excellent means to protect police officers from false or inconsistent accusations.
Another problem that I see is that cops often get judged by their worst recorded day. If you have a total surveillance of them, then pretty much every cop bar some superhuman saint is going to be a bad cop. There has to be some pragmatic, but at the same time, transparent allowance made for minor mistakes.
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 06:17:26 PM
Another problem that I see is that cops often get judged by their worst recorded day. If you have a total surveillance of them, then pretty much every cop bar some superhuman saint is going to be a bad cop. There has to be some pragmatic, but at the same time, transparent allowance made for minor mistakes.
This is selection bias. They get judged on not being perfect during the most controversial event. Constant surveillance can demonstrate that the officer in question has a long term history of competent by the books policing and will serve as an excellent character witness for the joker's "one bad day".
The reason the worst recorded day is often the one they get judged on is simply that it is the only recorded day.
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2013, 08:28:10 PM
The reason the worst recorded day is often the one they get judged on is simply that it is the only recorded day.
I disagree. I think it's because recordings of cops doing things right are mundane and not at all interesting, so they are never even watched by anyone.
Doing things right often leaves no paper trail and brings in no revenue.
Quote from: Barrister on October 09, 2013, 05:46:45 PM
The ACLU position comes at it from a very one-sided approach - that BWV is there to watch over the police. It has that purpose, of course. But that purpose is actually outweighed by the huge investigative tool that it would be. No loner do you have a cop on the stand struggling to remember what admissions the Accused made to him one year ago - now we have it on high-def video.
I'm not sure if the ACLU is recommending that BWV be "always on". It seems to say that would be preferable, but then does talk about options. I'm someone who has a great deal of my work day recorded - namely everything I say in court. But to have everything I say, period, recorded in a day strikes me as Orwellian. Surely the better approach is to have the cop in charge of when the camera is activated, and then have clear policies about when it is to be activated (namely - on first contact with a suspect).
So, in short - BWV will have the effect of helping to remove any police excessive force - but only as a side effect. It will also have a tremendous effect to ensure convictions. :thumbsup:
Well, that is the ACLU's job, to look at technology from the perspective of its impact on human rights, just as a prosecutor is going to view it from the perspective of increasing convictions.
I wouldn't call it a side effect though, in NYC at least it's being ordered by a judge with the express intent of monitoring police behavior.
The interesting thing is that BMV will eventually prove that pretty much all claims of police brutality are lies.
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2013, 08:55:02 PM
The interesting thing is that BMV will eventually prove that pretty much all claims of police brutality are lies.
BMV?
I imagine that if they're being constantly monitored police will commit far less brutality because they know they'll be caught.
Body Mounted Video. And it turns out that most people who accuse the police of brutality are criminal scumbags who are evil.
I wonder if it will affect police recruiting. Would you want to have yourself recorded on BMV all day, knowing that it's there for lawyers to nitpick over your actions? I wouldn't.
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 08:37:39 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2013, 08:28:10 PM
The reason the worst recorded day is often the one they get judged on is simply that it is the only recorded day.
I disagree. I think it's because recordings of cops doing things right are mundane and not at all interesting, so they are never even watched by anyone.
I disagree. Having worked for a company that monitored all my driving I can see how the record of acceleration, deceleration and speed were used to demonstrate to the advantage of a driver which got involved in an accident that he was a safe driver. This record saved his job, since unsafe driving was a firing offense. If a police officer is accused of anything he will be able to bring up his history in similar cases and the relevant one not only what he did in this case, but that he has shown good judgement over a long period. Furthermore he can't be accused of having an undocumented history of deviant behaviour since all the behaviour is documented.
This, like the car mounted cameras will primarily be used to protect police as well as keep them honest. Personally I'd like to see speed monitors connected to gps installed in all vehicles that automatically report speeding to the authorities. It would make for much safer and smoother traffic in addition to more nuanced speed limits, possibly changing based on weather and traffic conditions.
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2013, 08:28:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 06:17:26 PM
Another problem that I see is that cops often get judged by their worst recorded day. If you have a total surveillance of them, then pretty much every cop bar some superhuman saint is going to be a bad cop. There has to be some pragmatic, but at the same time, transparent allowance made for minor mistakes.
This is selection bias. They get judged on not being perfect during the most controversial event. Constant surveillance can demonstrate that the officer in question has a long term history of competent by the books policing and will serve as an excellent character witness for the joker's "one bad day".
The reason the worst recorded day is often the one they get judged on is simply that it is the only recorded day.
Disagree. Police are held to a standard of, while not perfection, they are expected to always comply with the law.
It is no defence to a complaint of criminal excessive force, to say "well I have an otherwise exemplary record".
Quote from: Barrister on October 09, 2013, 10:40:50 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2013, 08:28:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 06:17:26 PM
Another problem that I see is that cops often get judged by their worst recorded day. If you have a total surveillance of them, then pretty much every cop bar some superhuman saint is going to be a bad cop. There has to be some pragmatic, but at the same time, transparent allowance made for minor mistakes.
This is selection bias. They get judged on not being perfect during the most controversial event. Constant surveillance can demonstrate that the officer in question has a long term history of competent by the books policing and will serve as an excellent character witness for the joker's "one bad day".
The reason the worst recorded day is often the one they get judged on is simply that it is the only recorded day.
Disagree. Police are held to a standard of, while not perfection, they are expected to always comply with the law.
It is no defence to a complaint of criminal excessive force, to say "well I have an otherwise exemplary record".
I expect my police to comply with the law too.
In response to that complaint of criminal excessive force I want my police to comply with the law here. The BMV will protect the officer complying with the law and a long documented history of complying with the law will help the officer in cases where the evidence is not clear. The BMV will protect the officer from a false complaint of criminal excessive force, that is what I want. I also want the police to know that all actions are being monitored so they never get sloppy because nobody will know.
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2013, 10:47:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 09, 2013, 10:40:50 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2013, 08:28:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 06:17:26 PM
Another problem that I see is that cops often get judged by their worst recorded day. If you have a total surveillance of them, then pretty much every cop bar some superhuman saint is going to be a bad cop. There has to be some pragmatic, but at the same time, transparent allowance made for minor mistakes.
This is selection bias. They get judged on not being perfect during the most controversial event. Constant surveillance can demonstrate that the officer in question has a long term history of competent by the books policing and will serve as an excellent character witness for the joker's "one bad day".
The reason the worst recorded day is often the one they get judged on is simply that it is the only recorded day.
Disagree. Police are held to a standard of, while not perfection, they are expected to always comply with the law.
It is no defence to a complaint of criminal excessive force, to say "well I have an otherwise exemplary record".
I expect my police to comply with the law too.
In response to that complaint of criminal excessive force I want my police to comply with the law here. The BMV will protect the officer complying with the law and a long documented history of complying with the law will help the officer in cases where the evidence is not clear. The BMV will protect the officer from a false complaint of criminal excessive force, that is what I want. I also want the police to know that all actions are being monitored so they never get sloppy because nobody will know.
Viking, I think you are taking your experience of the bad truck accident, and taking it to an area where it would not apply.
If a cop beats a mouth drunk, it matters not that he saved 12 widows and orphans from certain death the week before. Evidence of prior good character is essentially irrelevant in a criminal trial.
If it comes to administrative sanction, then sure, good character matters. But not for criminal actions.
It is impossible to always comply with the law. The law is the enemy of justice.
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2013, 10:54:43 PM
It is impossible to always comply with the law. The law is the enemy of justice.
:ike:
Neil has a point. Eventually, every cop will be able to be caught doing something or other he shouldn't do. Everybody breaks the law at some point, sometimes by accident or ignorance but they still do.
Whatever. Your attitude is one that fosters crime and injustice.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2013, 10:58:47 PM
Neil has a point. Eventually, every cop will be able to be caught doing something or other he shouldn't do. Everybody breaks the law at some point, sometimes by accident or ignorance but they still do.
No. If one breaks the law by accident or ignorance, it is by definition not a crime.*
That's why I kept emphasizing "criminal actions".
*Except for 'ignorance of the law'.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 09, 2013, 05:29:46 PM
no prob with this :thumbsup:
I've no problem with the concept either, but some of the article's points and possibilities get a bit silly, though.
QuoteHistorically, there was no documentary evidence of most encounters between police officers and the public,
Really? Then I filled out all those hundreds of FI cards and turned them in at the end of the shift for nothing. Go fig.
I'm sure it will result in criminals walking free and large lawsuits against those who would defend civilization.
Quote from: Barrister on October 09, 2013, 10:53:29 PM
Viking, I think you are taking your experience of the bad truck accident, and taking it to an area where it would not apply.
If a cop beats a mouth drunk, it matters not that he saved 12 widows and orphans from certain death the week before. Evidence of prior good character is essentially irrelevant in a criminal trial.
If it comes to administrative sanction, then sure, good character matters. But not for criminal actions.
I think we may be talking past each other. The cop that breaks the law should be punished, harder even than citizens. I'm saying this is a tool to protect cops who do follow and apply the law from slander and false statements.
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 05:31:24 PM
These cameras would defend civil rights only if there is a way to ensure that such recordings will always be available. If these recordings only surface when they support police officer's story, and disappear when they don't, then the advantage of having them is dubious.
For once, Tim beat you to the punch with the thread title:
"With Right Polices". :thumbsup:
Probably will cut down on incidents like these.
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/08/woman_calls_911_for_diabetic_fiancee_cops_arrive_shoot_him_dead/
QuoteWoman calls 911 for diabetic fiancé, cops arrive, shoot him dead
A black man in Georgia was reportedly gunned down by police, while his hands were up and his family looked on
By Natasha Lennard
Topics: Police, Georgia, 9/11, Police shooting, unarmed, Police brutality, Diabetes, Race, News
When Alicia Herron of Georgia called 911 to get emergency medical help for her diabetic fiancé, Jack Lamar Roberson, she did not expect the police to show up. And she certainly did not expect them to shoot Roberson dead as he held his hands up.
While police claim Roberson came toward them "aggressively armed" with a knife, his family — witnesses to the incident — deny the police's version of events. Roberson's mother said the family didn't own "two decent knives." Reason.com reported that "His mother and his fiancée both witnessed the shooting, and their 8-year-old daughter was apparently in the home too."
Herron gave the following version of events to a local new station:
He didn't have nothing in his hands at any time or period at all before they came, any time while they were here, anything. They just came in and shot him. He didn't say nothing, the police didn't say nothing, anything, it was like a silent movie. You couldn't hear anything, all you could hear were the gun shots go off and I seen them going into his body and he just fell down.
The tendency of police to respond to 911 calls seeking medical assistance has in all too many occasions led to shootings. Last year, in a striking example, a mentally ill double-amputee in a wheelchair was shot dead by a Houston Police Department patrolman for waving a shiny pen in the air.
In an investigative report, which discovered that half the individuals shot by police have some sort of mental illness (not the case in the Roberson shooting), the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram listed a string of perturbing, trigger-happy police shootings:
In Saginaw, Mich., six police officers gun down a homeless, schizophrenic man in a vacant parking lot when he refuses to drop a small folding knife. In Seattle, Wash., a police officer fatally shoots a mentally ill, chronic alcoholic as he crosses the street, carving a piece of wood with a pocket knife. In Portland, Ore., police check on a man threatening suicide and wind up killing him with a single gunshot in the back.
Within a week of D.C. cops shooting dead an unarmed woman in a car on Capitol Hill, her toddler in the passenger seat, these all-too-common incidents of police shootings — usually carried out with impunity, often involving black victims — must be recognized as an abysmal pattern in U.S. policing, and far from one-off instances. The officers involved in Roberson's shooting are on paid leave.
"Allegedly" while his hands were up and his family looked on. "Allegedly."
QuoteLast year, in a striking example, a mentally ill double-amputee in a wheelchair was shot dead by a Houston Police Department patrolman for waving a shiny pen in the air.
That's why pens have caps.
QuoteWithin a week of D.C. cops shooting dead an unarmed woman in a car on Capitol Hill, her toddler in the passenger seat, these all-too-common incidents of police shootings
Don't see what a threat to the White House has to do with anything.
Quoteusually carried out with impunity, often involving black victims — must be recognized as an abysmal pattern in U.S. policing, and far from one-off instances.
Lulz, "impunity".
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 10, 2013, 10:37:46 PM
Probably will cut down on incidents like these.
Diabetic shocks? Yeah, for that guy anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2013, 10:47:35 PM
"Allegedly" while his hands were up and his family looked on. "Allegedly."
Well, if the cops had a camera on them, then there'd be no need to use the word allegedly. Everyone would no whether it was true or not.
I just came from a info session by the local police to the Crown's office.
Take away lesson - these things are seriously constrained by battery life. At present the units they have can only record approx. 90 minutes of video (though they can store much, much more). So while they will be useful, there is no possibility of them being ubiquitous at this point, and lots of moments are going to go uncaptured.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2013, 08:45:48 PM
Doing things right often leaves no paper trail and brings in no revenue.
It brings in no revenue, but it certainly reduces costs.
Quote from: fhdz on November 20, 2013, 10:35:02 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2013, 08:45:48 PM
Doing things right often leaves no paper trail and brings in no revenue.
It brings in no revenue, but it certainly reduces costs.
Probably not.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 10, 2013, 10:37:46 PM
Probably will cut down on incidents like these.
I'm always skeptical about these kinds of stories. No matter what happened, there is no real incentive to do anything other than claim the police murdered their family member in cold blood/without justification, is there?
Quote from: Kleves on November 21, 2013, 01:47:20 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 10, 2013, 10:37:46 PM
Probably will cut down on incidents like these.
I'm always skeptical about these kinds of stories. No matter what happened, there is no real incentive to do anything other than claim the police murdered their family member in cold blood/without justification, is there?
Yeah, black people are generally unreliable.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2013, 03:01:40 PM
I just came from a info session by the local police to the Crown's office.
Take away lesson - these things are seriously constrained by battery life. At present the units they have can only record approx. 90 minutes of video (though they can store much, much more). So while they will be useful, there is no possibility of them being ubiquitous at this point, and lots of moments are going to go uncaptured.
that answered my one question as to battery life As the all popular go pro cameras have roughly 2-2 1/2 hours before they need to be recharged.
Can't you just hang a car battery on the cop's utility belt? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2013, 08:17:07 AM
Can't you just hang a car battery on the cop's utility belt? :huh:
They already have the Maglite, no need for something to batter people with.
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2013, 02:03:21 AM
Yeah, people are generally unreliable.
FYP. Of course, if the cops did just roll in and straight-up murder the guy in front of his family for no reason, they would have no reason to tell the truth about it either.
Isn't the point of life to batter ourselves?
Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2013, 11:33:14 AM
Isn't the point of life to batter ourselves?
The batter is the enemy of the good.
Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2013, 11:33:14 AM
Isn't the point of life to batter ourselves?
As long as it is pancake batter.
Quote from: katmai on November 21, 2013, 05:23:29 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2013, 03:01:40 PM
I just came from a info session by the local police to the Crown's office.
Take away lesson - these things are seriously constrained by battery life. At present the units they have can only record approx. 90 minutes of video (though they can store much, much more). So while they will be useful, there is no possibility of them being ubiquitous at this point, and lots of moments are going to go uncaptured.
that answered my one question as to battery life As the all popular go pro cameras have roughly 2-2 1/2 hours before they need to be recharged.
And police being police are not going to just buy any-old off-the-shelf consumer technology, instead going for a police-only model (though in this case one made by Panasonic).
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 21, 2013, 11:38:37 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2013, 11:33:14 AM
Isn't the point of life to batter ourselves?
As long as it is pancake batter.
That isn't healthy. Go unbattered.
Quote from: Barrister on November 21, 2013, 11:47:22 AM
And police being police are not going to just buy any-old off-the-shelf consumer technology, instead going for a police-only model (though in this case one made by Panasonic).
Ugh. Or they'll get locked in on sole-sourced, proprietary bullshit. Win on the RFP, lose big on the SLA.
Hmm... (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Finvestigators&id=9440401)
Now now MIM, no one is going to be swayed by anything as inadequate as facts or evidence.
Not quite on topic, but close enough.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-reverses-longstanding-interview-policy-under-new-directive-n112396
QuoteFBI Reverses Longstanding Interview Policy Under New Directive
Agents from the FBI and some other federal law enforcement agencies will soon begin recording interviews of suspects in custody under a new Justice Department directive that reverses long-standing policy, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday.
The new policy, laid out in a memo issued last week by Deputy Attorney General James Cole, establishes a "presumption" that agents will record interviews with suspects who have been taken into custody but have not yet appeared in court. The policy, which is to take effect July 11, applies to agents from the FBI as well as the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the U.S. Marshals Service.
The new standard replaces the FBI's current practice, in which agents interview suspects without recording them, take handwritten notes and then produce a report summarizing the conversation.
It addresses concerns from civil rights groups and defense lawyers who have long argued that the absence of recordings creates evidentiary problems, leaving too many ambiguities as to what precisely was said during the interviews and whether agents' accounts are fully reliable.
"Creating an electronic record will ensure that we have an objective account of key investigations and interactions with people who are held in federal custody," Holder said in a video message announcing the change. "It will allow us to document that detained individuals are afforded their constitutionally-protected rights.
FBI Jon Elswick / AP
The headquarters building of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the J. Edgar Hoover building along Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, Sunday, Sept. 5, 2010.
He also said it would provide law enforcement with a "backstop" so that "they have clear and indisputable records of important statements and confessions made by individuals who have been detained."
The policy change allows for some exceptions, including if the suspect objects to the recording, if the recording is not practical or if the information provided in the interview could jeopardize national security. The memo encourages agents to make video recordings of interviews when available but says audio recordings may be sufficient.
Though it represents a dramatic departure from existing policy, the new directive is also limited in scope since it applies only to interviews with suspects who have already been arrested and are in federal custody.
- Associated Press
Those stats are very impressive.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/california-police-body-cameras-cuts-violence-complaints-rialto
Quote
News
World news
California
California police use of body cameras cuts violence and complaints
Body cameras worn by police in Rialto, California have resulted in better policing – and now other forces may follow suit
Rory Carroll in Rialto
The Guardian, Monday 4 November 2013 17.00 GMT
Jump to comments (99)
Link to video: California police body cams show real-life dramas in Rialto
The occupant was said to be violent, so officer Carlos Ramirez approached the apartment warily. A dank smell wafted from inside. Ramirez bristled with body armour, radio, gun and Taser, but before knocking on the door he adjusted just one piece of equipment: a tiny camera on his collar.
A tubby, barefoot man with broken teeth and wild eyes opened the door. He appeared to be high. Ramirez questioned him about allegedly beating and evicting his stepson, a mentally disabled teenager. The man shifted from foot to foot and babbled about death threats.
The encounter, tense but polite, ended inconclusively, a routine police foray into family dysfunction – except for the fact it was all recorded. As he returned to his patrol car and next assignment, Ramirez tapped an app on his phone and uploaded the video. "Somewhere down the line something could happen and what that guy said, his demeanour, could be evidence."
Rialto, a small, working-class city that bakes in the San Bernardino foothills outside Los Angeles, appeared in the films Transformers and The Hangover. Among law enforcers, however, it is becoming better known for pioneering the use of body cameras on police officers.
Over the past year all 70 of its uniformed officers have been kitted out with the oblong devices, about the size of stubby cigars, and the results have emboldened police forces elsewhere in the US and in the UK to follow suit.
The College of Policing recently announced plans for large-scale trials of body-worn video in England and Wales, saying Rialto's experiment showed big drops in the use of force and in public complaints against officers. David Davis, a former shadow home secretary, has backed the idea. It follows "plebgate's denting of public trust.
Rialto has also become an example for US forces since a federal judge in New York praised its initiative.
"I think we've opened some eyes in the law enforcement world. We've shown the potential," said Tony Farrar, Rialto's police chief. "It's catching on."
Body-worn cameras are not new. Devon and Cornwall police launched a pilot scheme in 2006 and forces in Strathclyde, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, among others, have also experimented.
But Rialto's randomised controlled study has seized attention because it offers scientific – and encouraging – findings: after cameras were introduced in February 2012, public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers' use of force fell by 60%.
"When you know you're being watched you behave a little better. That's just human nature," said Farrar. "As an officer you act a bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better."
Video clips provided by the department showed dramatic chases on foot – you can hear the officer panting – and by car that ended with arrests, and without injury. Complaints often stemmed not from operational issues but "officers' mouths", said the chief. "With a camera they are more conscious of how they speak and how they treat people."
The same applied to the public; once informed they were being filmed, even drunk or agitated people tended to become more polite, Farrar said. Those who lodged frivolous or bogus complaints about officers tended to retract them when shown video of the incidents. "It's like, 'Oh, I hadn't seen it that way.'"
Cameras made officers more careful about using force. "It's still part of the business, they still do it. But now they make better use of what we call verbal judo."
Fewer complaints and calmer policing, said Farrar, would reduce lawsuits and expensive payouts.
Images of police brutality have shaken California since grainy footage of Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King ignited riots in 1992. (Rialto police fished King out of his pool after he accidentally drowned last year).
In May sheriff's deputies in Kern county confiscated videophone footage of them fatally beating a father-of-four, David Silva, prompting suspicion of a cover-up.http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/13/local/la-me-ln-bakersfield-beating-20130513 In those and other cases the officers did not know they were being filmed.
Farrar is a wonkish contrast to the stereotypical abrasive commander of TV dramas. He has several degrees, including a recent master's from Cambridge's Institute of Criminology, which planted the idea of methodically assessing the impact of body cameras.
Upon returning to Rialto (city motto: "bridge to progress") he obtained $100,000 (£62,640) in state and federal funding for the Taser-made cameras – about $1,000 each – plus servers and fibre-optic cables. Each officer has his or her own camera, mounted on collars, spectacles or caps, and is expected to activate it during interactions with the public. Encounters are logged and uploaded to a secure digital cloud service, evidence.com.
The chief advised bigger departments who wish to do the same to scale up incrementally, to iron out technical bugs and let officers get used to the idea.
In Rialto some bristled at the intrusion, fearing loss of privacy and autonomy. "I heard guys complaining it would get them into trouble, but I've had no problems so I'm OK with it," said Ramirez.
Most now accepted cameras as another part of the job, said Sgt Josh Lindsay. A self-confessed technophile, he said they provided context to contentious incidents partially captured by bystanders' phones. "Now you can see the [suspect] punching the officer twice in the face before he hits him with his baton."
Even more valuable, cameras aided evidence gathering, such as statements from domestic abuse victims, he said. "By the time those cases get to court often things have cooled down and the victim retracts. But with the video you see her with the bloody lip. There's nothing lost in translation."
Under California law police are not obliged to inform people of the filming. Local media coverage has spread awareness of the cameras but many, like the barefoot man questioned by Ramirez, appear oblivious. If there is to be a backlash, it is too early.
Even Orwell did not anticipate body cameras in 1984, but the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, a frequent critic of police abuses, said with the right controls accountability gains would outweigh privacy concerns. It urged the department to regularly delete videos, and keep them private, unless needed for prosecutions.
Farrar said controls were in place. "No one wants to see these videos on YouTube."
Quote"No one wants to see these videos on YouTube."
:yeahright:
I just saw my first file with body-worn video.
First off I have to say it's amazing - suddenly the entire transaction is captured on video. There's no debating what the cop did or said. I can't wait to play this in court.
Second - it really emphasized how "worn" it is. Based on whatever the cop clipped the camera to, the entire footage isn't pointing straight forward, but rather about 30-45 degrees to the right of the cop. And, the footage is badly tilted.
Third - though this cop did nothing wrong that I could see or hear, boy oh boy was he ever being a dick with this accused! :lol:
I would tend to think a police officer being a dick is doing something wrong. They should have a very high standard of professionalism.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 26, 2014, 07:36:07 PM
I would tend to think a police officer being a dick is doing something wrong. They should have a very high standard of professionalism.
Weirdo
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 26, 2014, 07:36:07 PM
I would tend to think a police officer being a dick is doing something wrong. They should have a very high standard of professionalism.
Beeb acknowledging that a police officer can act like a dick is already a lot. He still can't wipe his smile off for two days after every time he gets to talk to Mr. Policeman.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 26, 2014, 07:36:07 PM
I would tend to think a police officer being a dick is doing something wrong. They should have a very high standard of professionalism.
Guy once asked me why I was arresting him. Wanton trespassing, I said. Told me he didn't want no trespassing.