Police cameras

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So, i'm ignorant here.  how does the police heirarchy of accountability go?
i would have thought that municipal police are accountable to the state's AG and the state police. i figured if there was police injustice at the state level that the fbi would get involved.
This is not how it works?

The Feds haven't gotten involved before, and probably won't again. They certainly aren't going to prosecute. It's not what they do.

The bolded seems confusingly contradictory.
the italicized confuses me because it was my understanding that they (i'm assuming the fbi) did precisely that (prosecute criminal activity).  Or is that to say they just won't prosecute those in the fraternal order?

It's not criminal action if the officers involved were exonerated by the investigators tasked with inquiring into the case.

[Elder Iptuous]

investigators as in internal affairs of the department?

at what point does the state AG get involved?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

investigators as in internal affairs of the department?

at what point does the state AG get involved?

Maybe you could look it up. I don't know that much about how insane internal corruption and lack of accountability works.

[East Coast Hustle]

If you had it set up in a way that every officer was assigned a camera, with a specific serial number or other identification, you could tell who WASN'T wearing it. 


If Officer Jones was wearing camera S-370 and John Doe said Officer Jones shoved him to the ground, and the camera shows the person with the POV shoving someone to the ground, the officer has to either say, "yeah, that was me" OR that it wasn't him, at which point he has to explain who the fuck has his camera and why.


Of course this could be abused, but if a lot of thought and planning is put into it you can make it very difficult to abuse which gives an officer minimal loop holes to weasel out of complaints.

Only it wouldn't be too hard to subvert that system. Who do you think would maintain the register of who checked out what? Furthermore, how would you prove that the camera was in fact worn by the person who signed it out?

You could do it through a third party, mandate that that responsibility isn't housed within the police department.  And you could make the cameras standard equipment, much like their badge and gun.  They are assigned a camera and also assigned responsibility for that camera, including if it ends up with someone else.

Yes, and while you're at it you could ride a unicorn to go visit the tooth fairy.

[East Coast Hustle]

Forgive me for being a BIT cynical, here in my pretty little green city where police have an entire division openly devoted to racial profiling, a woman was killed recently in my neighborhood for walking down the street while black, a popular restaurant owner (who happened to be gay) was beaten to death in police custody, numerous people have been killed by police recently for being mentally ill in public, the consequence for calling the cops if you have a burglar is that they will destroy your house and beat you, and the Feds conducted an investigation on police violence that concluded with "Listen, you guys need to figure out a way to stop killing unarmed innocent civilians, OK?" (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/09/federal_findings_on_portland_p.html) but the ONLY way I can see something like that being implemented here is if the police force is absolutely assured that they will be able to circumvent any aspects that might be to their disadvantage, and use other aspects to their advantage. Our police force is notoriously violent and racist, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, Federal directive or not.

Yeah, and then the ONE time the Mayor takes a stand and decides unilaterally to fire an officer for killing a civilian, the Police Union throws a fit, gets an arbitrator and the Employee Relations Board to reinstate the officer, and threatens to sue the city. Feel free to google "Ron Frashour".

[LMNO]

"Your honor, that cop punched me in the face for no reason, and then planted cocaine in my pocket!"

"The suspect was resisting arrest, and the contraband fell out of his pocket while subduing him."

"Well, let's let the tape show us what happened.  Where is the recording, officer Murphy?"

"I'm sorry, your honor.  It was malfunctioning at the time."

"Then we'll just have to take your word for it.  Five years mandatory sentence."



Repeat as necessary.

[Luna]

And you could make the cameras standard equipment, much like their badge and gun.  They are assigned a camera and also assigned responsibility for that camera, including if it ends up with someone else.

Badges don't need maintenance, and guns are generally user-maintained.  Cameras, like radar guns, would need regular maintenance to keep them running correctly.

I mention this, because, while I was working for an attorney's office, we had a case where somebody was protesting a speeding ticket.  Got tagged doing a buck ten...  He got off clean, because the attorney (who happened to be an ex-police chief) requested a copy of the noted radar gun's maintenance records.  Turned out that, according to the records, the gun used to tag the guy speeding was, on the day of the ticket, in the shop.

Wouldn't take long for there to be irregularities regarding who had which camera.

[Elder Iptuous]

so, the general agreement here is that:
1 law enforcement attracts corrupt individuals
2 therefore law enforcement will always abuse its power
3 law enforcement is essentially immune from prosecution due to privilege
4 there is no method of structuring the system to check their power because the people directly above them will exonerate them, and it's turtles all the way up.

sounds kind of fatalistic to me...

And you could make the cameras standard equipment, much like their badge and gun.  They are assigned a camera and also assigned responsibility for that camera, including if it ends up with someone else.

Badges don't need maintenance, and guns are generally user-maintained.  Cameras, like radar guns, would need regular maintenance to keep them running correctly.
I mention this, because, while I was working for an attorney's office, we had a case where somebody was protesting a speeding ticket.  Got tagged doing a buck ten...  He got off clean, because the attorney (who happened to be an ex-police chief) requested a copy of the noted radar gun's maintenance records.  Turned out that, according to the records, the gun used to tag the guy speeding was, on the day of the ticket, in the shop.
Wouldn't take long for there to be irregularities regarding who had which camera.

so, the end result in this case was that the citizen was exonerated because the records were available for court purposes and the policeman was caught?  the irregularities weren't able to be swept under the rug by the policeman?

[LMNO]

so, the general agreement here is that:
1 law enforcement tends to attract corrupt individuals
2 therefore some law enforcement will always abuse its power
3 Often, law enforcement is essentially immune from prosecution due to privilege
4 there is no blanket, one-fix method of structuring the system to check their power without compromising the privacy of citizens and being used cross-purposes to exert more personal power and control because the people directly above them will generally exonerate them, and it's turtles all the way up.

Sort of cleaned that up.  It's not a case of a 100% corrupt, power-mad police state; it's more that this solution breaks more than it fixes.

[East Coast Hustle]

so, the general agreement here is that:
1 law enforcement attracts corrupt individuals
2 therefore law enforcement will always abuse its power
3 law enforcement is essentially immune from prosecution due to privilege
4 there is no method of structuring the system to check their power because the people directly above them will exonerate them, and it's turtles all the way up.

sounds kind of fatalistic to me...

You can call it whatever you want, but it's just how it is. I have to admit, I'm having a hard time understanding why some people cling so hard to the myth of "protect and serve" in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

[Elder Iptuous]

so, the general agreement here is that:
1 law enforcement tends to attract corrupt individuals
2 therefore some law enforcement will always abuse its power
3 Often, law enforcement is essentially immune from prosecution due to privilege
4 there is no blanket, one-fix method of structuring the system to check their power without compromising the privacy of citizens and being used cross-purposes to exert more personal power and control because the people directly above them will generally exonerate them, and it's turtles all the way up.

Sort of cleaned that up.  It's not a case of a 100% corrupt, power-mad police state; it's more that this solution breaks more than it fixes.

agreed.  i was, however, getting the sense that most here are viewing things in more superlative terms.
superlatives are seldom correct, and i wouldn't advance this as a 'blanket, one-fix' solution.  but it does seem to me that it could help.
as for it breaking more than if fixes, i would say that's the debate here, and it is far from being proven one way or the other, as there have only been a couple test cases that were discontinued only due to cost or logistics issues (that will likely evaporate with technology)

[LMNO]

There's also the "breaking" in the ideology/Principle vein.  As in, "warrentless wiretapping has only led to a small amount of questionable prosecutions", while at the same time brutally fisting the 4th Amendment.

[Elder Iptuous]

so, the general agreement here is that:
1 law enforcement attracts corrupt individuals
2 therefore law enforcement will always abuse its power
3 law enforcement is essentially immune from prosecution due to privilege
4 there is no method of structuring the system to check their power because the people directly above them will exonerate them, and it's turtles all the way up.

sounds kind of fatalistic to me...

You can call it whatever you want, but it's just how it is. I have to admit, I'm having a hard time understanding why some people cling so hard to the myth of "protect and serve" in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

I can understand that.  cops make me nervous, in general.  hell, i'm not ashamed to admit it; they make me fear.
I think that's a pretty standard reaction these days, more or less.
so, it's probably not so much that people 'cling to the myth', as much as they observe the social requirement (you do believe they are necessary, right?) and cling to the notional requirement that they protect and serve.  that doesn't seem irrational to me.

[Elder Iptuous]

There's also the "breaking" in the ideology/Principle vein.  As in, "warrentless wiretapping has only led to a small amount of questionable prosecutions", while at the same time brutally fisting the 4th Amendment.

i think i understand what you're saying, but what is this breaking? 
i mean, it certainly plucks the chord that Roger pointed out (i.e. more cameras=bad), however this doesn't seem to really hold up to scrutiny in my opinion, because there is no more monitoring going on than before.  there's just record of the monitoring.

[trippinprincezz13]

"Your honor, that cop punched me in the face for no reason, and then planted cocaine in my pocket!"

"The suspect was resisting arrest, and the contraband fell out of his pocket while subduing him."

"Well, let's let the tape show us what happened.  Where is the recording, officer Murphy?"

"I'm sorry, your honor.  It was malfunctioning at the time."

"Then we'll just have to take your word for it.  Five years mandatory sentence."

Repeat as necessary.

Incidentally, we have a case right now where:

Police: Oh yea, he totally confessed during his interrogation.

Client: Um, no.

Counsel: Please provide recording.

Police: OOPSRECORDERWASN'TONLOL!!!!11!