Police cameras

[East Coast Hustle]

yeah, and the way cops are in a largely rural state full of tight-knit communities (i.e. the cops know almost everyone they interact with) is totally representative of how cops are in the rest of the country.

[AFK]

There certainly differences between law enforcement in cities vs rural areas, but it's also not like Maine has a monopoly on rural, tight-knit communities.  There's a lot of rural America out there.  But, I bristle, in general, to the generalization that is often made in popular culture of law enforcement. 

[East Coast Hustle]

In this particular case, there's a huge friggin' kernel of truth behind the stereotyping of cops. Say what you want, but the fact is that "policeman" is a job filled exclusively by the kind of people who WANT to have authority over the general populace and the ability to impose that authority with deadly force. The very fact that someone would WANT to be in that position makes them suspect as being fit to hold that position.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Law Enforcement culture will vary from department to department and community to community.  The ones I work with don't view the public as enemies or animals and are doing what they do precisely because they value the public and want it protected, which is why I think, in theory, the idea of recording police interactions is one that would receive less resistance than one might think.

Yeah, in communities that don't really need it.

[Elder Iptuous]

Yeah, the point is to have police in environments where there's not the accountability of familiarity being monitored.
it doesn't have to be a notoriously violent location or with notoriously corrupt/abusive cops, however, to be beneficial.

since this article got me thinking about the subject, there have been a few cases around here that made me think, "i bet they wish the cop was recording when that happened so the court could subpoena the footage".  for instance, some lady in one of the mid city burbs (that happens to be on the route to my kids kindergarten. shitneck cops in a speedtrap town, but not a dangerous place by any means) got pulled over for some traffic citation, and according to her testimony, the cop had her hands behind her back and when she complained that he was hurting her, he replied "it's not supposed to be comfortable".  Although she didn't say as much, i'm sure she was at least a little uncooperative when told this, because he felt it was necessary to be stern enough that he popped her breast implant shoving her against her car! 
now, i'm thinking that the he said/she said might give this bastard enough wiggle room that he's not punished as harshly as he deserves assuming that what she told the media is true.  (and i'm pretty sure that a POV camera would provide the necessary evidence, even though it's not from a 3rd person perspective...)

Another question regarding the notion that it is simply a matter of not wanting to be further observed by the authorities. (i.e. more cameras=bad argument):
is it the observation, or the recording of the observation that is objectionable?  we aren't arguing that police patrols are inherently bad, are we?  because if patrols are fine, then we currently have a situation where you are being monitored just as much, yet if there is an accusation of wrong doing leveled at you from the cop, responding "prove it!" is considered unreasonable, as the cop's word is considered proof.  If they are required to record interaction with the public, then "prove it" seems perfectly legitimate.
so, no real additional monitoring, and reduction of police privilege in a sense.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

There certainly differences between law enforcement in cities vs rural areas, but it's also not like Maine has a monopoly on rural, tight-knit communities.  There's a lot of rural America out there.  But, I bristle, in general, to the generalization that is often made in popular culture of law enforcement.

Rural cops are ten times worse than urban cops.  169% of the time.

Talking from direct experience, here. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In this particular case, there's a huge friggin' kernel of truth behind the stereotyping of cops. Say what you want, but the fact is that "policeman" is a job filled exclusively by the kind of people who WANT to have authority over the general populace and the ability to impose that authority with deadly force. The very fact that someone would WANT to be in that position makes them suspect as being fit to hold that position.

Not arguing this one.  Worst job ever.

[East Coast Hustle]

Another question regarding the notion that it is simply a matter of not wanting to be further observed by the authorities. (i.e. more cameras=bad argument):
is it the observation, or the recording of the observation that is objectionable?  we aren't arguing that police patrols are inherently bad, are we?  because if patrols are fine, then we currently have a situation where you are being monitored just as much, yet if there is an accusation of wrong doing leveled at you from the cop, responding "prove it!" is considered unreasonable, as the cop's word is considered proof.  If they are required to record interaction with the public, then "prove it" seems perfectly legitimate.
so, no real additional monitoring, and reduction of police privilege in a sense.

I still don't agree, but this is the first reasonable argument I've heard from anyone in favor of this sort of thing.

Of course, I also take the position that police patrols ARE inherently bad. But I understand that puts me in a tiny minority.

[Don Coyote]

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?

[AFK]

There certainly differences between law enforcement in cities vs rural areas, but it's also not like Maine has a monopoly on rural, tight-knit communities.  There's a lot of rural America out there.  But, I bristle, in general, to the generalization that is often made in popular culture of law enforcement.

Rural cops are ten times worse than urban cops.  169% of the time.

Talking from direct experience, here.

Some are, some aren't. 

[AFK]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Elder Iptuous]

perhaps a state law mandating use of technology like this which cannot be circumvented (easily) is called for in scenarios just like what you describe?

these police abuses... do they go unpunished?  did the Feds have insufficient evidence to prosecute them?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

perhaps a state law mandating use of technology like this which cannot be circumvented (easily) is called for in scenarios just like what you describe?

these police abuses... do they go unpunished?  did the Feds have insufficient evidence to prosecute them?

The police launch an inquiry, and find the involved officers innocent of wrongdoing.

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.

[Elder Iptuous]

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?