Obama Requests $263 Million for Police Body Cameras, Training

[Kutnupe14]

I think it should be law that all cops wear body cams

I don't. In order for it to be effective, it would have to be on constantly.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What do the cops do when they take lunch? What do they do when they need to use the restroom? Who has the YouTube rights?

Do these cops have level III body armor available to them before they get a camera? Do they get a dash cam?

I'm not against body cams but lets get our priorities clear.

IMPD does not have dash cams.

Few get rifle resistant vest issued to them.

I'm right there with you. I think you'd see a decline in officer wrongdoing, but I think you'd see a severe decline in people applying for the job... unless salaries were raised taking into acct the complete loss of privacy an officer would obviously have to endure.

 

[Roland of Gilead]

Body cams can add to the picture to the situation, not the end all body evidence. Once there is a fight, it's mumbled blur of the fight.

https:https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct...--qW2bLJbGNAYR-rVLQSchXQ&ust=1417079771933722

not getting youtube video

 

[Denny347]

There are some 2nd and 3rd order effects we must consider. I see that some believe that the video should be available to the public. Ok. What is the 2nd order effect of that? If I come to your house for a report or similar, my camera is on. That video of your conversation and the inside of your house is now public access. How about a rape victim interview? The details are not placed in a public report, now the video will have a face attached to the details available to the public. What about a concerned citizen who wants to dime out a problem house in the neighborhood but wants to remain anonymous? That will now be public access as well. In Oregon, there is a guy who filed a FOIA request for all a department's video, tens of thousands of hours of video will now be his to do what he wants with it. I'm not saying that video will not be valuable but we must be prepared to address the effects of it's implementation.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Not against body cams. Never was against dash cams. I think the cams protect the officers - all for that.

That's not the perception and that's what p*55es me off. The perception is the White House agrees with the looters. The attorney general agrees with the looters. The media agrees with the looters. Why? Why would they do that? A very large man robbed a store and attacked an officer, but because he's black it's the officer's fault for defending himself.

Tell you what else grinds my gears - the St. Louis Rams demonstrating in uniform, on an NFL field, in front of a paying NFL crowd, also agreeing with the looters. The players can do what ever they want, but not on company time with the company resources. Godell is totally worthless as an NFL commish. Every single NFL PR fiasco he fails...and for this he's paid $17M/year.

 

[Lebowski]

I don't. In order for it to be effective, it would have to be on constantly.

Could be triggered and set to record when the cruiser lights get switched on or gun is unholstered, for example. Wouldn't necessarily need to be on throughout their entire shift.

 

[Expat]

One more thing that the Federal government has no reason to be spending money on...

 

[OakRiver]

And what are the ramifications for people the LEOs are speaking to without having their rights read? Seems that there will be a lot of unintended consequences surrounding this

 

[Trigger Time]

There are some 2nd and 3rd order effects we must consider. I see that some believe that the video should be available to the public. Ok. What is the 2nd order effect of that? If I come to your house for a report or similar, my camera is on. That video of your conversation and the inside of your house is now public access. How about a rape victim interview? The details are not placed in a public report, now the video will have a face attached to the details available to the public. What about a concerned citizen who wants to dime out a problem house in the neighborhood but wants to remain anonymous? That will now be public access as well. In Oregon, there is a guy who filed a FOIA request for all a department's video, tens of thousands of hours of video will now be his to do what he wants with it. I'm not saying that video will not be valuable but we must be prepared to address the effects of it's implementation.

You bring up valid concerns. Also I don't want to watch a cop or anyone go to the bathroom or eat a burger, so how do we get around these issues. Also I don't think the brass should have access to officers private conversations with their coworkers. They say they wouldn't watch unless there's an incident to review but do we really believe that for one second? I don't!!

 

[KittySlayer]

There are some 2nd and 3rd order effects we must consider...

Also remember that electronic things fail... regularly. Could be as simple as a run down battery from working an extra long shift. Could be that catchup stain from the burger at lunch. Could be any number of failures. So anytime there is a disputed incident and the video is not available the automatic assumption will be the officer is guilty.

 

[ticktwrter]

As a police officer working the streets I am changing my opinion from being against body cameras to thinking they do have a place in police work. I am concerned about what administrations will want to have recorded. I am also concerned about the privacy of some we deal with. I would not want what a traumatized rape victim tells me broadcasted on youtube because some nut job gets a FOI and gets a copy of all video. I also don't have to advise you of your Miranda rights on or off camera if I am not asking you questions pertaining to a crime you are suspected of. I don't have to advise you of Miranda if I am asking your name or address etc. All of that being said I don't want Obama to pay for this because then he will put strings on it. I am currently issued a federal military surplus rifle for work but the department is getting tired of the federal red tape and is going to replace them with departmentally owned rifles.

 

[ghuns]

As with dash cams currently in use, if footage shows the officer did bad, a department more concerned with covering an officer's arse and saving their municipality from a huge cash payout can just say, the equipment malfunctioned and make the video disappear.

I am not saying this is the norm, or a common occurrence, but it can happen easily.

If the public trusts its police so little that it demands they record every public interaction, why would the public trust them to be reliable caretakers of such recordings?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Could be triggered and set to record when the cruiser lights get switched on or gun is unholstered, for example. Wouldn't necessarily need to be on throughout their entire shift.

Ya know, that's actually a good idea. I'd have no issue with that.

 

[KittySlayer]

Could be triggered and set to record when the cruiser lights get switched on or gun is unholstered, for example. Wouldn't necessarily need to be on throughout their entire shift.

I thought about the unholstering too but the real facts that would be needed to appease the masses is the events leading up to the unholstering. Think of the Cleveland kid, if you did not see him go to his waistband for the gun and only saw the officers shot would you be able to determine he was justified? Perhaps a continuous loop recording where only the previous 10 minutes is saved when a gun or tazer is unholstered.

 

[pudly]

Ya know, that's actually a good idea. I'd have no issue with that.

Questions because I don't know...

Would that idea (start recording with unholstering/lights) have done anything at all with the Ferguson encounter? Were the car lights turned on at the start of the encounter? If someone tries to grab your gun in holster and you have to concentrate on retention for a couple of seconds, then pull it out, wouldn't it look like you initiated the confrontation by pulling it out to point? If you are on foot when you encounter someone, do you always start with a gun draw to capture the relevant information?

It seems to me that both of these trigger events will often end up missing the cause of a police intervention. Wouldn't there also be a problem with defense lawyers and juries having unrealistic expectations that if there is no video, there was no crime?

 

[bwframe]

I have no doubt about the usefulness of cameras. I wonder though what we are setting ourselves up for financially? $1000 per officer, plus support staff, plus IT, plus backup, etc?
Once we jump that fence, there seems to be no going back, the same as every squad car now MUST have a multi-thousand dollar computer system.

 

[HoughMade]

The cost is an issue. Would it be offset, to some extent, but fewer lawsuits?

Also, the more departments that adopt them, the more it becomes the expected standard of care...soon any department that does not have them, budget irrelevant, will be accused, in the courts and media, of trying to hide something.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The cost is an issue. Would it be offset, to some extent, but fewer lawsuits?

Also, the more departments that adopt them, the more it becomes the expected standard of care...soon any department that does not have them, budget irrelevant, will be accused, in the courts and media, of trying to hide something.

That's scary, because I can see it spiraling out of control.

 

[pudly]

Simple economics lesson: The higher the costs of something (in money, effort or social costs), the less you will get of that thing.

 

[seedubs1]

Would need a department of some sort separate of the police to manage the cameras and recordings. Otherwise, the police will just delete footage when they see fit and say the camera malfunctioned.