Minneapolis Police Shoot Unarmed Woman In Pajamas — With Bodycams Off

[T.Lex]

Apropos of nothing, I was reminded that one of my wife's relatives lived VERY close to that area. Like, I think a few miles, at most. Visited there in the past, and it is/was a nice area. Lots of parks. Not really an area that I'd think of as "high crime" such that LEOs would need to have their pistol drawn for every interaction.

Granted, times change, and I'm open to contrary information.

There's a Minneapolis crime map available online, and it shows some residential burglaries reported in the area, but that's it. Not that that's a good thing, just that its what's reported. Less crime there, apparently, than other parts of Minneapolis.

ETA:
Forgot link to crime map-
https://communitycrimemap.com/?rms=Minneapolis_Crime_Map&type=simple&address=Minneapolis MN

Area of the shoot was 50xx block of Washburn Ave. S. Generally, SW side of Minneapolis, NE of Edina.

 

[T.Lex]

You are storing every recording on every shift for a long, long time.

Don't forget indexing and manpower to retrieve the individual calls on the video for APRA requests. Each time some random attorney wants bodycam footage of an officer's interactions in a public restroom, someone has to go find it, retrieve it, copy it, and make it available for said attorney. (That's just a randomly selected scenario, for illustration purposes only.)

Then, the associated costs to redact any private information that may've been disclosed on the video.

 

[myhightechsec]

Don't forget indexing and manpower to retrieve the individual calls on the video for APRA requests. Each time some random attorney wants bodycam footage of an officer's interactions in a public restroom, someone has to go find it, retrieve it, copy it, and make it available for said attorney. (That's just a randomly selected scenario, for illustration purposes only.)

Then, the associated costs to redact any private information that may've been disclosed on the video.

Or... we can live (or die) with the police "forgetting" to actually turn the cameras on.

Not being purposefully snarky but there has got to be a better way to do this. Obviously the current way is not working too well.

 

[Thor]

(Thor is glad he lives somewhere that does not register on that database...)

 

[Thor]

Don't forget indexing and manpower to retrieve the individual calls on the video for APRA requests. Each time some random attorney wants bodycam footage of an officer's interactions in a public restroom, someone has to go find it, retrieve it, copy it, and make it available for said attorney. (That's just a randomly selected scenario, for illustration purposes only.)
.

I have never wanted to see video of me using the restroom...

 

[HoughMade]

...Obviously the current way is not working too well.

Based on one or 2 incidents? I don't know if it is is working well or not. If perfection is the standard, I'm pretty sure no one will want to pay the taxes necessary to attain it.

Don't forget indexing and manpower to retrieve the individual calls on the video for APRA requests. Each time some random attorney wants bodycam footage of an officer's interactions in a public restroom, someone has to go find it, retrieve it, copy it, and make it available for said attorney. (That's just a randomly selected scenario, for illustration purposes only.)...

There's always a few rabble-rousing mopes who just want to just like to harass the popo then scream something unintelligible about retaliation. or something.

 

[actaeon277]

Would a body cam have captured anything. Okay. Sound would have worked. But visual? In a car, wouldn't the officer's bodies have been pointed forward?

 

[T.Lex]

Or... we can live (or die) with the police "forgetting" to actually turn the cameras on.

Not being purposefully snarky but there has got to be a better way to do this. Obviously the current way is not working too well.

No snark taken.

The on/off issue is different than the archiving/retrieval issue, although capacity is what ties them together.

When I left this area of practice, the apex of technology was basically a DVR system that had nodes around the jurisdiction that when officers drove by, or stopped (like at the station), the upload would start (where it left off) and transfer recordings. The recording itself had parameters to "record" an increment before the triggering event. So, let's say it was tied to the lights. The DVR is always caching, then when the lights come on, it would record the 30 seconds (or whatever parameter was set) PRIOR to the lights coming on. In the case of a traffic violation, then, the actual violation could be recorded. That was helpful.

A similar technology could be used with the body cams, with perhaps a signal booster on the car itself - as the cameras themselves probably wouldn't have enough power to handle the connection and upload.

But a system like that would be millions - several millions - of dollars for a city the size of Indy or Minneapolis. Maybe tens of millions. Which leads to conversations about tax increases, assessments, appropriations, etc.

 

[rkwhyte2]

Yeah, in practice, I'm not sure the "turn this on now" criteria were met, based on available information.

Its nice to have a policy that says the cameras should be on prior to an officer using deadly force. It would be REALLY nice if that were always possible. But its not. The victim does not appear (based on available information) to have been doing anything illegal. So, if they are still in the car, nothing illegal happening, then there's no reason to turn on the camera.

I wonder how difficult it would be to have a switch in the holster that would turn on the body cam whenever the gun left the holster.

 

[Bigtanker]

Maybe I missed it but has the other officer in the drivers seat made a statement yet?

 

[IndyDave1776]

"So many police departments shoot first and ask questions later." Here you go making the all or nothing statements again. Police departments don't shoot people, individual officers do. To vilify an entire department, or profession for that matter, based on the actions of one officer is assinine. You know, kind of like when all gun owners are vilified for the actions of one? But hey, we're talking about the police so who cares about making rational statements.

I would have to disagree with the bit about the entire department. My experience has been that a good department will weed out bad officers, and a bad department will weed out good officers such that it can easily be the case that casting harsh judgment on the entire department is perfectly fair.

 

[myhightechsec]

Maybe I missed it but has the other officer in the drivers seat made a statement yet?

None that I've seen yet. I can imagine that someone has him tied up already. Either his own lawyer, a union one, or a department one.

 

[Leadeye]

Similar situation years ago, somebody shooting in my front yard late at night. Called 911 and sat in the basement stairwell with the family until I saw the reflections of the red lights and a knock at the door.

Took some flak for that from gun friends as I was a young man at the time, but I reminded them that you don't want to be outside when the police respond to a call like that and you don't want to be looking out of lighted windows or doors either.

 

[TangoSierraEcho]

Interesting side discussion about "should I call the police?" Its funny, because some of our LEOs bring up, "should I go to a doctor?" The answer is the same for both. Probably not unless you really need to. Both can save your life but contact with both increases your risk of accidental injury or death. Everything in life is a risk benefit ratio. The most adamant people I know that say to avoid unnecessary medical attention or LEO encounters are, wait for it, doctors and LEOs. On the other hand when you need them, you accept the additional risk in hopes that the benefit will outweigh it.

This is a great observation, I was thinking the same thing as I read this and other articles where 911 was called and the caller ended up dead. Obviously every circumstance is different but do you believe that situations like this could cause more and more people to weigh the benefit and say no, I'm not going to call police or deal with it themselves.

 

[myhightechsec]

Based on one or 2 incidents? I don't know if it is is working well or not. If perfection is the standard, I'm pretty sure no one will want to pay the taxes necessary to attain it.

there are certainly a lot more than just "one or two"

Since 2014, at least 14 people have been killed by police officers wearing body cameras that were either not turned on or not operational.

That's just "killed". How many more incidents were there that didn't reach that level?

I am not saying the police are bad. I am just saying there has got to be a better mechanism if we are going to go that route. Right now the public is being sold a false comfort.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-fre...ras-courts-should-instruct-juries-think-twice

 

[HoughMade]

there are certainly a lot more than just "one or two"

That's just "killed". How many more incidents were there that didn't reach that level?

I am not saying the police are bad. I am just saying there has got to be a better mechanism if we are going to go that route. Right now the public is being sold a false comfort.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-fre...ras-courts-should-instruct-juries-think-twice

14 killed out of how many interactions? Any unjustified shooting is too many, but before we start going down this road, let's figure out whether this is a statistically significant issue of whether it's "Shark Week".

If we lowered the speed limit to 40 mph, I'm sure we'd save lives, but at what cost. Like it or not, nothing is a no cost proposition and before wholesale changes in policy or tech are made, it's prudent to determine how big the problem really is, whether any proposed changes would make any difference (and in police shootings, that is much murkier) and what these changes would cost in terms of all types of costs involved.

 

[ghuns]

...The victim does not appear (based on available information) to have been doing anything illegal. So, if they are still in the car, nothing illegal happening, then there's no reason to turn on the camera.

And no reason to shoot her. And yet, here we are.

 

[myhightechsec]

14 killed out of how many interactions? Any unjustified shooting is too many, but before we start going down this road, let's figure out whether this is a statistically significant issue of whether it's "Shark Week".

If we lowered the speed limit to 40 mph, I'm sure we'd save lives, but at what cost. Like it or not, nothing is a no cost proposition and before wholesale changes in policy or tech are made, it's prudent to determine how big the problem really is, whether any proposed changes would make any difference (and in police shootings, that is much murkier) and what these changes would cost in terms of all types of costs involved.

Again... that is 14 "killed". How many lesser less-than-reasonable/legal interactions were not recorded? Based upon all the possibilities that can happen in an interaction between cops and citizens it can be a rather large number.

I am not sure the ACLU approach to the solution is the best but it is "no cost." At least in monetary terms. The guilty miscreant who gets off at trial because the cop didn't turn his camera on and then goes out to murder someone has certainly put a "cost" on society.

Considering the number of police depts. and police across the country (and other potential sales to other parties) I would think that the person who solves this problem in a cost effective way would stand to make a considerable fortune.

 

[Thor]

If we lowered the speed limit to 40 mph, I'm sure we'd save lives.

Jimmy Carter is that you?

Have you ever driven across Kanas/Nebraska? 40MPH (like 55) is still fast enough to kill you but slow enough to bore you out of your skull and think you're safe. I'm thinking the number of people falling asleep at the wheel and driving off the road/into other traffic will skyrocket. The only thing I'm sure of is that the revenue generated in the speed traps will be looked favorably upon by the legislatures in flat states with straight roads.

 

[BobDaniels]

Maybe I missed it but has the other officer in the drivers seat made a statement yet?

I am curious about this as well. But, with two exploded ear drums, he's not hearing their questions! I can't imagine being inside a car with a gun being shot a time or two.