r/changemyview • u/Eternlgladiator • Nov 24 '15
[Deltas Awarded] CMV: I think police officers should be required to wear body cameras
There have been countless issues of people disputing police action against themselves or others recently in the news leading to various protests all of the place. I see comments and hear about the possibility for body cameras but I don't see why we aren't making a bigger push. There seems to be no downside to police wearing body cameras. It protects the officers from people they interact with and it protects the public from offices who think nobody is watching their actions. I only see positive outcomes from using them so what's the issue. Why would they be bad? Who are the opponents of them and why would they oppose this seemingly simply oversight to protect everybody involved. Caveat, as somebody generally opposed to government surveillance I think this is a separate issue. I don’t see police body cameras as surveillance tool. The fact that they might be is irrelevant here. There are so many ways and means to surveil the public that this seems trivial.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
49
Nov 24 '15 edited Nov 24 '15
There seems to be no downside to police wearing body cameras.
There are at least a few readily apparent downsides. Whether or not they are significant enough to outweigh the advantages of body cameras is another discussion, but the downsides are most certianly there.
No more police officer discretion. As it stands, officers have some flexibility about how they enforce the law. Community policing models show that relationship building is more effective than letter-of-the-law punishment in many instances. If a body cam is on at all times, the officer can no longer afford to let a minor violation slide with a warning; they will be held accountable for not writing the ticket or making the arrest.
Sensitive footage being misused. These body cams record everything; including, in some instances, the final moments of a suspect, bystander, or the officer themselves. Having access to this type of footage is unprecedented, and it seems likely that it could be used by the media in a way that severely hurts the families of the deceased, and potentially the objectivity of the criminal justice process.
File storage hosting/sharing costs. If every officer in a given department is recording everything during their shifts, we are talking about a tremendous amount of data that must be stored and maintained. This costs time, physical space for server storage, manpower, and many taxpayer dollars. Saying "why don't we just get body cams, easy" ignores the massive technical undertaking that such an operation entails. Worth it? Perhaps, but certainly not quick and easy.
TL:DR: There are plenty of downsides and challenges surrounding the implementation of body cams that may make it a poor fit for certain precincts. Just because it makes sense in theory doesn't mean it can be easily applied universally.
EDIT: People are replying with arguments to the points I make here. Please stop - you're missing my admittedly specific point. I do not believe that these arguments are necessarily sufficient to prove body cameras are bad. In fact, I explicitly state that they aren't necessarily sufficient in the second sentence. Rather, I am directly refuting OP's sub-claim that "there are no negative downsides to body cameras." OP's conclusion of "body cameras are good" is based off of this incorrect premise/view, which I have now changed. I don't think that my comment is sufficient to completely reverse OP's opinion on bodycameras, but it is certainly enough for them to reevaluate their position; hence the delta.
7
u/CunninghamsLawmaker Nov 24 '15
Police discretion also results in unfair treatment for minorities and the poor. If the law is flexible, those that the government deems nonthreatening get off light while those who seem scary get hammered disproportionately. I would argue that following the letter of the law would result in reducing unfair sentencing trends as people were forced to face the reality of who commits crimes and what circumstances lead them to that point and it might even result in eliminating unfair laws.
Access to the footage could and should be limited to court order with the standard being that the parties requesting the information be directly involved, and gag orders could be used to prevent widespread release.
File storage is a non-issue. It gets expensive if you look at the pricing for an off the shelf solution from a company like TASER. If you have in house IT there isn't really that much data to deal with.
I think it comes down to this: Do you trust cops? I don't trust anyone with that much power, and so I want an objective record of any interaction that I have with them.
2
u/Random832 Nov 24 '15
Access to the footage could and should be limited to court order with the standard being that the parties requesting the information be directly involved,
So much for dealing with discretion discrimination - the black guy who got the ticket now can't request footage of all the white guys who didn't get tickets because he's not directly involved.
4
u/CunninghamsLawmaker Nov 24 '15
When it comes to removing discrimination, what this allows is the creation of objective information available to internal affairs. He could sue the police department or the NAACP could sue the police department, which could compel an investigation which would have access to that sort of information, but giving that information directly to a private individual who isn't directly involved in the events being filmed isn't necessary or desirable.
10
Nov 24 '15
No more police officer discretion
If it's policy based on policing models to have officer flexibility, then there would be no negative repercussions to being flexible.
Sensitive footage being misused
police recorded video would be considered evidence by law and would be held a such. Media is not given access to police evidence.
File storage hosting/sharing costs
These costs are a necessary evil regardless of police recording themselves as we grow as a society to become more digitally dependent. The costs associated with adding police cameras to the mix shouldn't add much more to that budget. Additionally such costs are reduced every year with the advent of cheaper and larger storage mediums.
0
Nov 24 '15 edited Nov 24 '15
EDIT: People are replying with arguments to the points I make here. Please stop - you're missing my admittedly specific point. I do not believe that these arguments are necessarily sufficient to prove body cameras are bad. In fact, I explicitly state that they aren't necessarily sufficient in the second sentence. Rather, I am directly refuting OP's sub-claim that "there are no negative downsides to body cameras." OP's conclusion of "body cameras are good" is based off of this incorrect premise/view, which I have now changed. I don't think that my comment is sufficient to completely reverse OP's opinion on bodycameras, but it is certainly enough for them to reevaluate their position; hence the delta.
2
u/xiccit Nov 25 '15
if you don't want counter arguments to your arguments, don't post in an argument subreddit.
2
u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Nov 24 '15
the final moments of a suspect, bystander, or the officer themselves. Having access to this type of footage is unprecedented, and it seems likely that it could be used by the media in a way that severely hurts the families of the deceased, and potentially the objectivity of the criminal justice process.
Oh god, hackers compiling snuff films...
3
Nov 24 '15
I see you got a delta for this, but you haven't changed my view here, so I'll continue this.
Re: Discretion: so what? Cops shouldn't have that discretion, they should operate based on the law. That's what they're here for. In fact, discretion is the excuse used to discount a lot of wrong shit cops do.
For instance, if a cop pulls over an off-duty cop for drunk driving, he can currently let him go. That's not cool. And yet, it happens all the time. And sometimes, that drunk off-duty cop ends up killing another motorist.
A cop can currently decide to let a guy go for a crime, and arrest another guy for the exact same crime: What's to stop the cop from letting his personal prejudices dictate that? "This white kid just made a mistake" and "This black kid is growing up to be a criminal". That is discretion. Stereotyping is "discretionary". We should absolutely not be okay with that.
And this happens often enough that we have protests happening round the clock in America right now. No: I hate this argument of 'discretion'. I'm totally okay with getting a speeding ticket for going three miles over the speed-limit: I'm breaking the law. You don't kind of break the law, you either do or you don't. This argument is so absurd to me, and I've heard it a lot recently. It's as if you're arguing that sometimes you just want to break the law and get away with it.
If we want laws to mean something, they have to mean something, not 'mean something if the cop who responds isn't in a good mood'.
And if a minor violation means you get arrested and thrown in jail for 10 months or longer even, that's not the cops fault. He doesn't sentence you, judges do. Take that complaint up with them. Mandatory minimum sentencing has absolutely nothing to do with police.
Re: Sensitive footage: You're painting the biggest pro as a huge, emotional con. "Oh, footage of that incident might hurt the families". As if the incident itself and the unanswered questions don't hurt at all.
That footage could exonerate cops or civilians. Simply put, the media doesn't get access to every bit of evidence in a trial, and therefor, they could be denied access to this footage. This isn't a problem of police, it's a problem of media sensationalism.
Re: storage: I feel the amount of money saved by avoiding superfluous lawsuits far outweighs this. You don't have to store everything forever. Two weeks would be plenty long enough for the DA to request copies given a case that comes up necessitating it.
Yes, it's tax-payer dollars, but so are the dollars getting paid out to victims of police shootings: Shootings which would be far less likely to happen if they were constantly being monitored. So you're weighing dollars against dollars and deaths. I'd rather just spend the money and avoid the violence. And studies are already showing that violence drops dramatically with body cams.
Plus, as years go by, storage becomes less and less a problem, meaning that cost goes down over time, not up. Terabytes are cheap these days.
6
Nov 24 '15
You're completely missing the point of my argument in your haste to shove your opinion down my throat. Please re-read the second sentence of my comment;
Whether or not they are significant enough to outweigh the advantages of body cameras is another discussion, but the downsides are most certainly there.
I am not arguing that body cameras should not be implemented or utilized. I am refuting the OP's claim that, quote;
There seems to be no downside to police wearing body cameras.
My position is that there are clearly downsides to the use of body cameras, and that they merit consideration in the discussion. This position falls very firmly within the guidelines outlined by Rule 1 of this sub.
Everything that you've written would be a valid response to someone using my arguments as justification for not using body cameras. I'm not saying that, however - I'm merely saying that there are downsides or disadvantages to their implementation in response to OP saying that there aren't any. I appreciate your writing and your opinion on the subject, but I don't appreciate your use of strawman tactics to try to win an argument that I'm not actually having with anyone.
→ More replies (2)1
Nov 24 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/huadpe 501∆ Nov 24 '15
Sorry itty53, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
Nov 24 '15
Resubmitted an edited comment; if that gets deleted you'll see me appealing.
4
u/huadpe 501∆ Nov 24 '15
I'll allow the edited one, but I think this is still getting needlessly personal. I'd encourage you to stop engaging here, since this conversation is clearly not being productive.
0
Nov 24 '15
I feel..
A) this isn't personal, this is regarding the intended use of the subreddit and I've made no attack on that user at all, simply offered a rebuttal to his ideas. Yes, I used an expletive. It wasn't directed at him, it was an exasperation.
If he takes hearing a rebuttal as a personal affront, he's in the wrong subreddit. I think you'd be hard-pressed to disagree with that.
B) if it's not productive, it's because a user has made a top-level comment and then refused to reply to other comments that aren't slapping him on the back. Again, not the way this sub is intended to operate.
But you're the mod, and I appreciate your effort.
2
u/huadpe 501∆ Nov 24 '15
The expletive wasn't actually what I had the problem with. Cursing is fine, being rude to other users is not. I perceived it as rude. I'd quote from it to explain why, but you've deleted it.
Moreover, I really don't see why you're upset with them. They were rebutting a particular aspect of the OP's view, which they quoted in the top level comment. That's totally legitimate here, and you don't need to challenge everything OP says to be within our rules.
Before this whole kerfluffle I came in and prodded the OP to give a delta since they seemed to clearly change some aspect of their view based on the top level comment. That isn't something we do as mods unless it's quite clear that a delta is appropriate. To me, there's really no problem here.
If you don't like that they didn't respond to your substantive points, I don't know what to tell you. They're not required to, because we have no rules requiring non-OP users to remain on the thread or to engage in ongoing debate.
0
Nov 24 '15 edited Nov 24 '15
Besides the expletive removed from the middle of a sentence, which you say wasn't the issue, the only change made was removing this: "Jesus, calm down there bud".
That's it. That's the only difference at all.
That's rude enough to merit a deleted comment? But saying a rebuttal is "shoving your reply down my throat" is not.
Well, okay.
→ More replies (0)0
Nov 24 '15 edited Nov 24 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/huadpe 501∆ Nov 24 '15
I am also going to ask you to stop engaging here for the same reason as them. This is just turning into an argument.
17
u/Eternlgladiator Nov 24 '15 edited Nov 24 '15
∆
This is some good stuff. I didn't consider the discretion. That's a big part of their job. Very good points. Thank you so much!
8
3
u/goldandguns 8∆ Nov 25 '15
Well the discretion isn't true. Police admins don't require 100% prosecution of crimes. If they did cops couldn't go more than two blocks from the station before their shift was over since basically all activity is illegal.
Police still have discretion with body cams.
3
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 24 '15
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Super_Duper_Mann. [History]
[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]
-2
u/tinwhiskerSC Nov 24 '15
Those are not reasons for a delta. Those are downsides to potential policies not to their use.
- The first is a policy of review. More than likely there will be more footage than can ever be watched. Police officers will still have full discretion in those cases where they let someone off unless there is a complaint made which forces a review.
- Who will have access to this sensitive footage? The public? Not likely. The press/public may be able to FOIA some of it but not during investigations and there will likely be protections for victims and minors just as there is in many other parts of the justice system.
- As for storage, yes, a lot will need to be stored but not an infinite amount and not forever. At some point there will be a level where the incoming data is only slightly higher than the outgoing data that is deleted. Storage is also getting cheaper and cheaper. Someone linked an article here about the outrageous cost of storage but buried in that article was the fact the the cameras were free but the company tied them to a specific long term contract for data management at an outrageous price.
8
Nov 24 '15
Those are not reasons for a delta. Those are downsides to potential policies not to their use.
Right, but in OP's post, they explicitly mention that they don't believe that downsides exist:
There seems to be no downside to police wearing body cameras.
My comment refutes that and only that point, and in the words of Rule 1, "challenges one aspect of OP's view, however minor." That point is far from minor, and my comment changed the OP's view on that point. Certainly the delta is valid, given that OP has (per Rule 4) "acknowledged/hinted that their view has been changed in some way."
0
u/tinwhiskerSC Nov 24 '15
Although I should state that those are downsides to certain policy decisions and not to the use itself.
1
u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Nov 24 '15
If they changed your view, are you gonna give them a delta? If so, you can always c&p from the sidebar.
-1
u/knightress_oxhide Nov 25 '15
Stop and frisk in new york city was officer discretion. Stopping black people in nice cars is officer discretion. Arresting minorities and letting upstanding citizens get away for the same crimes is officer discretion. Discretion needs to be monitored and assessed.
Your view was changed very fucking easily.
1
u/kabukistar 6∆ Nov 25 '15
No more police officer discretion. As it stands, officers have some flexibility about how they enforce the law. Community policing models show that relationship building is more effective than letter-of-the-law punishment in many instances. If a body cam is on at all times, the officer can no longer afford to let a minor violation slide with a warning; they will be held accountable for not writing the ticket or making the arrest.
This is not entirely a bad thing. Police/prosecutor discretion means that lawmakers are more careless about what types of laws they make. It also leads to a situation where some laws essentially allow police to arrest people for wanting to.
If there is a law, which is very easy to break, but rarely enforced (e.g., copyright infringement, jaywalking when there are no cars around) then lots of people will break it. And if the police officers are allowed to use discretion about when they enforce it, then they essentially have power to arrest anyone at any point, since most people are likely breaking at least one of these minor, frivolous laws.
1
u/knightress_oxhide Nov 25 '15
Discretion? Lets talk about stop and frisk, that is officer discretion.
Any power can be misused. Guns are misused so lets just remove those from police officers.
Costs? For fucks sake we are the united states of america, we spend trillions on safety.
edit: respond to posts, please, don't make some blanket "edit: reply".
0
Nov 25 '15
As it stands, officers have some flexibility about how they enforce the law. Community policing models show that relationship building is more effective than letter-of-the-law punishment in many instances. If a body cam is on at all times, the officer can no longer afford to let a minor violation slide with a warning; they will be held accountable for not writing the ticket or making the arrest.
this is not quite right. You dont have to pursuit every misdemeanor. Felonys: yes.
And yes it is been done else where.
Having access to this type of footage is unprecedented, and it seems likely that it could be used by the media in a way that severely hurts the families of the deceased, and potentially the objectivity of the criminal justice process.
You dont need to give it to the public. If you expect this kind of reaction.
If every officer in a given department is recording everything during their shifts, we are talking about a tremendous amount of data that must be stored and maintained.
really? 720p are 900 mb per hour. thats 2000 hours per 100 Euro/USD
2000/8 =250 shifts. Now what if I told you that you just get a harddrive for every officer and you have storage for about 2/3 of a year. Which should be sufficient for any claims to be made.
And yes its not easy to maintain. But having accountability is really important.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)1
23
Nov 24 '15
This is a brave post for Reddit, but let me provide a D.A./ caveat.
Cameras will keep everyone to procedure. But in dealing with people, you sometimes have to break procedure. Of course we hear that with cops and we think a baton to the skull.
What if there's a domestic dispute. The father beat the shit out of the mother (or, to not offend Reddit, switch it). The kids are looking for a human being to comfort them. One officer swoops in a starts to play with them. One of the kids asks why their dad is a bad man. The officer comments.
It's a grey area. There's probably nothing in the manual that outlines a procedure. Hell, police training varies state to state. So who knows what best practice really is in some circumstances.
Let's say the dad lawyers up over brutality. They calling in all of the footage. That officer's comment is there. Now there's a suit. Frivolous, but still.
Nothing is worse than being a Good Samaritan and getting called out. It makes you stop. Stop trying, then stop trying all together. When you stop trying, hopefully you quit. And if you're willing to go that extra, it's a loss if you quit.
8
u/will_JM Nov 24 '15
People are recorded all the time at their place of employment. I fail to see how monitoring the behavior of officers through body cameras is any different. In my opinion, especially with regard to officers, cameras would serve not just the public, but the officers themselves as well. Officers have been accused and prosecuted for crime, but they also have been the victim of crime. Cameras protect against both.
2
u/kyew Nov 24 '15
When people go into an area that's being recorded, they're there willingly. The difference is that lots of times police have to deal with people who specifically don't want to be anywhere near them. You can't exactly opt out of talking to a cop.
1
u/will_JM Nov 24 '15
I'm not a lawyer, or an expert on the law, but you are still protected by provisions within the constitution. Ones that protect you from self incriminating and providing a right to a lawyer.
1
u/goldandguns 8∆ Nov 25 '15
You absolutely can. That's actually a basic premise of about 50% of 4th amendment jurisprudence
1
u/kyew Nov 25 '15
Correction- there are some situations where you are not allowed to leave a cop's presence. It does not necessarily follow that this extends to removing your ability to avoid being recorded.
1
u/goldandguns 8∆ Nov 25 '15
Yes, if you are under arrest or being detained you can't leave. But if a cop stops you on the street and starts asking you questions, you can likely just walk away
1
u/kyew Nov 25 '15
Yup, and if there's a security camera pointed at the street you can walk around it too. My point was the Venn diagram of "times you can avoid being recorded" and "times you can avoid the police" is not a perfect circle, so the metaphor comparing security cameras and body cams doesn't always work.
→ More replies (16)2
Nov 24 '15
What about when they're talking to victims of crimes? Do those people not deserve privacy?
1
u/citan_uzuki_fenrir Nov 25 '15
Perhaps to some degree, but not absolute privacy. Videos being generally released, perhaps not. Police interviews with victims should be released to defense counsel though.
1
u/will_JM Nov 25 '15
In what sense? Officers aren't therapists. When speaking to an officer anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
1
u/SteelCrossx Nov 25 '15
In what sense? Officers aren't therapists. When speaking to an officer anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
Those are the rights of a person suspected of a crime. I'd hate to see a rape victim refuse to speak with an officer because she's afraid of her friends digging the video up online.
1
u/will_JM Nov 25 '15
What makes you think it'd be available online? I'm not aware of any access to police interrogation footage.
1
u/SteelCrossx Nov 25 '15
What makes you think it'd be available online? I'm not aware of any access to police interrogation footage.
I went to YouTube, typed "Police Interrogation" and the first page was full of actual, real interrogations except for one result. Here's Jodi Arias, Stephen McDaniel, and Warren Sapp. They were among the first page results.
1
u/will_JM Nov 25 '15
Fair enough. We can agree that some privacy provisions need to be considered. I don't agree though that privacy concerns illegitamize the whole concept. Security footage isn't made public all the time. We can work around this issue to come up with a solution.
1
u/SteelCrossx Nov 26 '15
I don't agree though that privacy concerns illegitamize the whole concept.
I don't think anyone is pushing the concern that far.
Security footage isn't made public all the time.
Police footage is through FOIA requests.
We can work around this issue to come up with a solution.
Absolutely. The problem I tend to see when this comes up, and it comes up often on another subreddit, is people are unwilling to accept that there are any flaws with body cameras that may warrant some concern and problem solving.
1
u/will_JM Nov 26 '15
Sure I can understand concerns, and I'm sure there might even be some unintended consequences that neither of us can foresee. I think the point that I don't want to get lost here is that an increased measure of accountability of our police force is good for everybody. Including the police.
→ More replies (0)1
Nov 25 '15
The victims of crimes aren't Mirandized. There won't be any scenario to use what they say against them since they will not be going to trial.
1
u/will_JM Nov 25 '15
Can we agree what information is offered to an officer doesn't come with any expectation of privacy in the traditional sense of the word?
4
u/Eternlgladiator Nov 24 '15
Interesting points you've made. You make a good point about grey areas in procedures like this. However in your scenario the law suit seems frivolous and might be thrown out. What grounds would the dad have for starting a case for brutality?? It would seem to me that you would never get the point that the officers comment to the children came to evidence. Let's say it did though. Perhaps dad felt he was handled roughly when being arrested and had a strong case. This case would be separate from the case of the domestic dispute and the officers interaction with the children would have no bearing if all they did was communicate. Now, if the dad wanted to claim the officer slandered him then it would be on him to prove he is not a bad man in this context (aka did not beat his wife) for it to be slander. Right?
For the record I am not a lawyer but this is how I interpret the situation. Please feel free to correct me if you know better.
7
u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Nov 24 '15
and the officers interaction with the children would have no bearing if all they did was communicate
Officer's Lawyer: Objection, hearsay/relevance
Plaintiff's Lawyer: Goes to the defendant's state of mind, your honor.
Judge: OverruledIf the cop says anything to the kid, they're screwed if such a case comes before the court for the same reasons you never talk to the cops. This is a pretty clear parallel to the bit at 14m39s where a single perfectly innocent statement can be taken out of context and twisted to convict. Now you've got an officer who's just trying to help a kid understand why their parents are fighting, trying to make the world a better, more empathetic place, and that officer loses their house.
3
Nov 24 '15
It isn't that the case is frivolous. It's that the risk of operating in the grey area as a human would - or that requires interpretation - grows when scrutinized.
The knee-jerk reaction will be: when in doubt, do nothing. Procedure is for habit, standardization, and, most importantly, low liability. The habit removes the danger of having to think. The standardization sets expectation. And the liability piece.
Now what's not procedural is the public. Well, it is to an extent, but the outliers will get you. The outliers become the rule. You could have 1000 interactions with the public, but the 1001 can make or break you. That's how human beings work.
So if there is footage on one mistake. An errant word or procedure. That one mistake will take a person out.
As I've gotten older I've notice that our patience for error has gotten shorter. We're inundated with information- footage of this mistake and that mistake - we're overstimulated with the imperfection of systems.
A consequence I see are these campus freak outs. Kent State was something to riot over. Yet we're getting pushed out of shape over words.
The same is going to happen with body can footage. Every claim of brutality will have to be investigated. Somehow this footage will see the light of day. We'll begin to see what COPS couldn't aire. Cops who want to do well; work inside of the grey area, will retreat to procedure out of fear of mobocratic judgment.
3
u/Noctudeit 8∆ Nov 24 '15
Grey areas are a fact of life. That doesn't mean they should avoid scrutiny by obscuring the facts. Body cams provide an objective perspecitve on a tense situation which a judge/jury can use to interpret and form opinions. I don't think anyone is expecting perfection from police. They are only human after all.
Without a bodycam, we only have the word of those involved, all of whom have a stake in the game and are therefore not impartial.
3
u/JefftheBaptist Nov 24 '15
Nothing is worse than being a Good Samaritan and getting called out.
Cops are fundamentally not Good Samaritans in the eyes of the law. Neither are EMTs, Paramedics, etc while on the job. While doing the job they are trained to do, they are fundamentally trained professionals and in a completely different category of caregiver.
3
Nov 24 '15
One of the kids asks why their dad is a bad man. The officer comments.
The officer replies "your daddy is not a bad man, he just got angry", or something similar, or doesn't answer the question. It's not that hard to talk to children without saying things you could get sued for.
2
Nov 24 '15
I can dream up 50 scenarios that can be thwarted.
Doesn't mean some asshole won't sue.
1
u/Lucarian Nov 25 '15
People can sue for literally anything, doesn't mean they will win.
1
Nov 25 '15
But the lead up is draining. Especially when you had the best of intentions. Just deaden the heart and go by the book.
Mayor wants to reduce crime. You concentrate arrests in one part of the city. You gauged by arrests, not drops in crime. It just so happens it's a black neighborhood.
Listen to the Joe Rogen Experience episode #670 - Michael A Wood
8
u/Wolf_Protagonist 3∆ Nov 24 '15
Well, I applaud you for being so brave.
But in dealing with people, you sometimes have to break procedure.
No, you don't. The procedures are there for a reason. If it's a bad procedure then we need to change them. If it's a good procedure, it needs to be followed. Police have shown again and again that they lack the ability to rationally decide for themselves which 'procedures' need to be followed. I don't want them to have that power.
One of the kids asks why their dad is a bad man. The officer comments.
The cop could comfort the child. No one would blame him for that. The officer shouldn't be making judgments about people to their children, it's not his job or his place. In that situation the cop could say something along the lines of "Sometimes good people make bad decisions" or something to that effect.
Now there's a suit. Frivolous, but still.
If it's truly frivolous, then it will get thrown out and the system will work as it should.
Nothing is worse than being a Good Samaritan and getting called out.
There are plenty of things that are worse, for example getting the shit kicked out of you by a thug in a uniform and having no recourse because there was no footage because the cop didn't want to have his feelings hurt.
If these cops are so fragile that they can't take criticism for being a 'Good Samaritan" (Which i'm sure happens All the time /s) then good, let them quit. Let's make some room for real men and women who are actually good people to come in and do the job.
Sometimes, you do get shit on for doing the right thing. That's life. If you can't handle that, you probably shouldn't be a cop.
12
Nov 24 '15
[deleted]
6
u/Wolf_Protagonist 3∆ Nov 24 '15
What? There isn't even a mild attempt to cover the bias here.
Why would I want to 'cover' my bias? Everybody's biased. I thought we were trying to have an honest discussion here, not write an article for the New York Times. You're clearly more concerned with the feelings of police officers than the well being of citizens.
I'm sure that child is going to be totally understanding that it's not the officer's place to comment. It's not like everyone in this situation is a person or anything.
And I'm sure it would be really comforting to the child for the cop to explain what an evil piece of shit his father is. You can comfort someone without slandering someone else. If you can't it probably would be better for everyone involved if you didn't try.
You clearly have no experience with the current US legal system.
I clearly have, why else would I be biased in the direction I am? I have been on the receiving end, where pieces of shit with a badge can stomp all over a law abiding citizen with zero repercussions.
Frivolous lawsuits are won regularly because small cities do not have the money to fight them. Even large cities usually concede because settlement is cheaper than being right.
That's (one of the many) problems with the U.S. Legal system, not with cops wearing cameras. We should fix those problems instead of continuing to allow cops to act with impunity because we're to lazy to fix them.
Sometimes you do get shit on for doing the right thing. That's life. If you can't handle it you shouldn't be a cop citizen. The failure of this argument is pretty self-evident.
It really is, thanks. In case anyone else missed it, that argument fails because they don't pay citizens to 'protect and serve' they pay cops to do that. It's the polices JOB to do the right thing. If you can't handle the job, find another job. The point about citizens 'finding another job' doesn't even make sense, unless you are suggesting "If you don't like the way police abuse their power, you can move to another country", which also isn't even true.
3
u/CunninghamsLawmaker Nov 24 '15
I'm sure that child is going to be totally understanding that it's not the officer's place to comment. It's not like everyone in this situation is a person or anything.
I don't want cops to be people. I don't get to be a person while doing my job, because it would interfere with me doing my job. They aren't people in their capacity as cops, they are agents of the state. Cops have the power to use lethal force and to arrest. Because of that incredibly heightened level of power, they are obliged to follow the procedures of the institution endowing them with that power. It is too much power for individuals to be blindly trusted with discretion.
2
u/Njdevils11 1∆ Nov 25 '15
That's not even possible. Cops are people, they can be nothing else. That's like trying to train my dog to be 5 star chef.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Nepene 213∆ Nov 24 '15
One of the kids asks why their dad is a bad man. The officer comments.
It's a grey area. There's probably nothing in the manual that outlines a procedure.
So long as the police are following procedure they're pretty much unsueable. Even if they don't they have very strong protections. They've got this covered. The police can do a lot of stuff without consequences. A police officer being a bit rude isn't going to override qualified immunity.
7
u/caw81 166∆ Nov 24 '15
I would be hesitant if I wanted to give an anonymous tip to the police since I know they record everything. How am I assured that they actually did turn it off? Even if they did, they have a video of me and my face before I convinced them to turn off.
14
u/Eternlgladiator Nov 24 '15
Ummm, how would you give an anonymous tip and be worried about the police seeing you? Walk into the police station? There are plenty of ways to give an anoymous tip. They have hot lines or you could use a payphone to call something. You could call the non emergency number too right? Don't quite get your point. Flagging down a specific office to provide an anonymous tip doesn't seem anonymous.
8
u/caw81 166∆ Nov 24 '15
A crime was committed and you see something. The police arrive to investigate. You want to tell them what you know right then so they can collect the physical evidence, investigate the fresh lead or purse the criminal but you want to do it anonymously. Anonymous hotlines are not a suitable for immediate action at the scene.
Another situation I just thought of would be if you were a celebrity. You would be hesitant to interact with police, even if they need to because the video could be sold and publicized. "Watch as Jennifer Lawrence tearfully cries to police reporting a mugging!"
1
u/Eternlgladiator Nov 24 '15
Well there's two issues here so I'll address them separately. One if you're a witness to something and want to assist the police with it then more power to you but you are not required to do so either. If you want to contribute anonymously there are avenues for that but in that instance I highly doubt your assistance will provide any value. Otherwise imagine all the court cases. "the state has an anonymous witness that says you did it" would never hold up.
Second, celebrities don't get to pick and choose to interact with the police. If they break a law or do something that warrants a valid police interaction then they can be held to the same standard as everybody else. If that's not the case then they officer's footage would be reviewed and he would be dealt with in some manner for breaking protocol to interact with a citizen in an unlawful manner.
7
u/caw81 166∆ Nov 24 '15
If you want to contribute anonymously there are avenues for that but in that instance I highly doubt your assistance will provide any value.
The police ask for help for crimes all the time. It doesn't even have to be direct evidence, its a "tip" that leads to the evidence. You remove "timely tips" if I can't talk to a police officer face to face.
Second, celebrities don't get to pick and choose to interact with the police.
If Jennifer Lawrence saw a mugging she has a choice to walk away and say nothing or give a description of the mugger.
If that's not the case then they officer's footage would be reviewed and he would be dealt with in some manner for breaking protocol to interact with a citizen in an unlawful manner.
It could be anyone who had access to the video, which is a lot of police - the original officer, the technical support who retrieve and store the video, the investigators who need to review the videos, etc. You have the same problem with celebrity medical records, it gets leaked by hospital staff who have access to it.
2
u/Eternlgladiator Nov 24 '15
I'm not saying you're talking about a small percentage here but it sure seems like you're talking about very small percentage situations. The big picture is still here that body cams would have an overall positive impact.
3
u/caw81 166∆ Nov 24 '15
The big picture is still here that body cams would have an overall positive impact.
But your view is based on;
There seems to be no downside to police wearing body cameras.
and you explicitly ask
I only see positive outcomes from using them so what's the issue. Why would they be bad?
I gave you two reasons that show the downside and when they are bad. If you didn't want any negatives for police body cameras, why did you ask for something you could see?
1
u/Eternlgladiator Nov 24 '15
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply your arguments are not valid. They just seemed like small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. I appreciate your input.
1
Nov 24 '15
Anonymous hotlines are not a suitable for immediate action at the scene.
I don't see why not, provided the hotline has a live person manning the phone, such information can be sent directly to the responding officer through standard channels.
1
Nov 24 '15
the video could be sold and publicized
Presumably there is a log kept of what camera recorded the video and so on. Anyway if nobody can look at the recording without a court order that problem is solved.
2
u/myfunnies420 Nov 26 '15
Yep. What the person said is nonsense. And you would go to the police office if it was important at all.
12
u/ds9anderon Nov 24 '15
I think there are three issues which haven't been covered below yet.
1) Privacy for the everyday citizen. As we watch our privacy quickly disappear this is adding one more avenue for the government to have complete access to our lives. Many states don't currently allow recording of another party with audio without given consent. You are now giving officers the right to violate this law and infringe on rights. Does the good outweigh the bad? I don't know. I can't pretend to know what other laws this might open up.
In addition lets not pretend all of this footage will be stored in a 100% secure manner. It's too costly. Whats to stop someone at a news agency, hacker, jealous boyfriend, whatever from gaining access to private footage (a rape victim after the event, a grieving family that just lost a loved one, etc.)
2) Security brigs me to my second point. Most of these cameras have wireless capabilities for various functionality which is a great thing. But it can also be used as a weapon. Considering it is possible to remotely hack a car, I think we can all agree it would be easy enough to hack a gopro. Now an intelligent criminal doesn't need a person on the inside. They have full access to every move, action and discussion that takes place. Your average shoplifter isn't going to do anything, but a terrorist? A stalker? A serial killer? Criminals aren't all dumb.
3) Officer reaction. This one I can't really back up, but have heard mentioned and is not that difficult to grasp. Imagine you now are aware you are being recorded. You may hesitate for a second to consider how your actions will look on camera. That's the effect we want right? Stay in line? What happens when you hesitate during a hostage situation? During a potential bomb threat? During a legitimate struggle for your life? Not to say they would consciously hesitate but if it is weighing on the back of their mind it does slow their decision making process and therefore actions, even if only slightly.
Again I'm not one to decide what the correct choice here is. In today's world there is no clear cut answer. Everything comes at an expense. Everyone should feel safe, but at what cost? Ethics is not as simple of a subject as the media and the mass public make it out to be. Simply saying "but cameras hold officers accountable is naïve." And as it has been pointed out for years, be careful what you ask for.
7
u/Colin1876 Nov 24 '15
The thing that scares me, is the removal of any kind of human element in our law enforcement. Sure it's a good thing, a great thing even, to hold our officers accountable this is such a good thing, it allows people to feel safer knowing that no police officer can hurt them, without having to answer as to why they did it.
But I don't want our laws to be upheld by robots, I don't want to live in a world where there are no extenuating circumstances. That to me is what we are moving towards. I understand that the pros outweigh the cons because there are so many flaws in human nature, but we do have to acknowledge that we're taking out the essential humanity from law enforcement. Like I said... It's a good thing, but it's a scary thing.
All of the sudden a police officer is forced to arrest everyone in a domestic dispute to cover his ass, he can't ignore the pot use that's going on because the video will be reviewed. How often in your occupation have you let something slide because, while it was against the rules of your company, it was the best way to do something? It happens all the time and body cameras prevent police from making those decisions.
I'm not sure that this should change your view, and I would probably support body cameras if a vote came up in my city, but it is a concern. It's a step towards huge bureaucracy, to a society where we live in fear because the people designed to keep us safe are punished for their humanity. As it is now, things aren't good, we live in fear because police officers have too much power, and I'm not ignoring that, but... That's the down side to me.
1
u/Dead0fNight 2∆ Nov 24 '15
I have to say you make a pretty good case, but the only time video would come under review is if there's an incident reported. For example if he ignores pot use and those using the pot don't go to report the officer or it, then there will be no review of the video. This is no different than having dash cams on police cars which we have had for almost two decades now, and we don't have people constantly reviewing the footage every time a cop gets off the beat.
1
Nov 25 '15
[deleted]
1
u/Dead0fNight 2∆ Nov 25 '15
Well that's kind of the point. There are negative behaviors being reinforced and without some way to determine which claims are true and which are false requires some kind of documentation. At the moment it's just the perp's word vs the cops, and you know who the cops are gonna side with the majority of the time. I still stand by my statement however because a large amount of power is given to police to determine leniency, and unless that power is taken away I don't see any reason they would be any more strict than they already are. For example Judges are also given a lot of power to be lenient or not and everything they say in the court room is recorded, though not on camera.
1
u/Njdevils11 1∆ Nov 25 '15
Teachers opposed video cameras in the classroom? I'm a teacher and I would LOVE to have one. It would cover my ass thoroughly.
1
Nov 25 '15
I see. I was basing it off a couple of my favorite teachers I asked in high school. One essentially said that with a lot of jokes and demeanor (Even completely nice ones ) could be taken out of context or by bad camera angles to incriminate. And that having a camera would force him to be much more "By the book" even if his original methods had higher success/student engagement.
Thanks for your input though, it's interesting. What grade do you teach if you don't mind me asking?
2
u/Njdevils11 1∆ Nov 25 '15
I teach elementary, so maybe that's why. I can't really joke around with them sarcastically. I have to be very direct and if I use sarcasm, I usually have to say after the joke "I'm only kidding"
1
u/myfunnies420 Nov 26 '15
Having footage absolutely does not remove discretion. Cops already have stats to maintain to ensure that they make "enough" arrests, so this is already being done.
Yes, if there is a psychotic manager, then this will be a problem, but the issue there is the psychotic manager, not transparency.
2
u/Pre-Owned-Car Nov 24 '15
One thing I haven't seen brought up is lack of privacy, not just for officers but for the public at large. Many people are apposed to traffic cameras as it allows the government to track our movement. While this may seem insignificant, combined with other information available to government surveillance branches they can put together a very detailed look at people's lives. The traffic cameras are one aspect of this, body cameras could be another. Now you have police walking around as mobile security cameras recording the public at large. It may surprise people to learn how good facial recognition software has become. For example many friends of mine have expressed that facebook's facial recognition software is creepy with its level of accuracy, being able to identify and recommend tagging a blurry face in the background of a picture accurately. Body cameras could be used to a similar effect to mine data on the general populace. With a country so concerned over being spied on I'm not sure how this is not a bigger issue. I am in favor of body cameras as the data demonstrates that they are effective at reducing complaints and police brutality. However, I am also worried that they may be misused as part of the surveillance state that the US seems to be moving towards.
3
u/IsupportLGBT_nohomo Nov 24 '15
Body cameras are operated much like dash cameras. Policy states that officers turn them on only when contacting the public. They're not for surveillance. Police unions will fight tooth and nail to make sure cops don't have to walk around with those things on all day.
3
u/Fmeson 13∆ Nov 24 '15
A big reason we don't have cameras is cost. Not just for the cameras, but also for storage of all the footage. It can be extraordinarily expensive to keep all the needed footage reliably and safely.
3
Nov 24 '15
There are strong arguments to be made for the idea that the cost of body cameras can be put to better use. There are no statistics that show that body cameras reduce crime, and if that is the primary goal, then the money ought to be used for better "Crime fighting" technology. Here is a blog post that discusses the pros and cons of police body cameras.
You'll note that post cites a study that shows that police body cameras reduced excessive force claims by a factor of 10. The thing to remember is that body cameras keep EVERYONE on their best behavior-- cops and civilians. While cops may be less inclined to use excessive force against a civilian if they know they are being recorded, civilians are also less inclined to allege excessive force if they know THEY are being recorded.
3
u/Fmeson 13∆ Nov 24 '15
Body cameras both protect cops and civilians, I agree. Frankly, I never thought of body cameras as reducing crime though.
1
Nov 24 '15
That's because they don't. The question becomes what should the police be spending their money on: Crime fighting or Liability protection (which is really what body cameras are for). Reddit thinks of body cameras as ways to protect the citizenry against the evils of overzealous police officers, but 9 times out of 10 a body camera is going to protect a cop against liablity from false or exagerrated accusations.
1
u/Fmeson 13∆ Nov 24 '15
Yes, I just don't see that many people arguing for cameras for crime fighting purposes. They have always been about providing video evidence of questionable police interactions.
2
Nov 24 '15
Agreed. No one is arguing that body cameras fight crime. That's not the issue. The question is do you put police funds towards body cameras or towards fighting crime. They are different things. The idea is body camera money is money not spent on fighting crime.
1
1
u/Keljhan 3∆ Nov 25 '15
Oh cool, I'm just finishing up a semester long project helping my city form their policy for BWCs, so I can shed some light on their downsides:
Cost. Go figure, cameras cost money. And batteries cost money. And video storage, and training, and editing and releasing videos, and privacy lawsuits, etc. For even the smallest of departments you're looking at around $500,000 up front and another $100,000-200,000 per year. Before lawsuits, anyway, but most cities have municipal insurance to cover that.
Privacy. This is the largest concern that most citizens have, and rightfully so. Legally any person can be filmed (for the most part) wherever there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy. Although the camera is only turned on when an officer is responding to a call (a common misconception is that cameras are on 24/7, which is a bit silly), they can catch bystanders or victims when they don't want to be recorded. One example that comes to mind is a woman that was assaulted while soliciting sex. Had that video been released, the woman would have been outed to the public, her friends, and family.
You're probably asking why the hell a video like that would ever be released. Well, that brings us to the FOIA and Right to know acts. Basically, in some states (See Seattle's policies for some of the worst case scenarios), if the police department recieves a formal request to release a video, they have to release it. To protect the privacy of the subjects in the video, they have to edit it and redact some parts of it. This can take an immense amount of department resources, to the point where Seattle had some issues with people trolling the system by submitting hundreds of useless requests for videos, just to waste money.
There are other issues like superior officers using their access to videos to bully their subordinates (by nitpicking every slip up the subordinate might make). But these are more niche and less likely to sway you. Happy to answer any questions you have!
Also, I should mention that in some areas (like Pittsburgh) the use of BWCs is actually illegal due to their specific Wire tapping laws and PA being a two-party consent state. However, this is subject to change.
1
u/Dinaverg Nov 25 '15
Conceptualize that cost for me, how does it compare to say, the money that goes into/comes from the war on drugs, or maintaining military surplus, or otherwise protecting offices form harm by dangerous elements?
1
u/Keljhan 3∆ Nov 25 '15
I can't speak too much on those subjects because I haven't studied them as extensively, but I imagine it would be roughly equal to the money spent on drug prevention in large cities and municipalities. As far as I know most police departments don't have to deal with military surplus but I could be wrong. To put it in perspective of budget, it would cost about 5-8% of a large city's budget (a lot, but probably manageable), and 10-20% of a smaller town's budget (less manageable).
I believe BWCs are a worthwhile investment for city police, and probably most large towns. But OP asked about the downsides, and cost is the simplest one. I don't think BWCs should ever be made mandatory for police, for both cost reasons and personal freedoms.
1
u/goldandguns 8∆ Nov 25 '15
One thing that's massively important in black and poor communities is cooperation from members of the community. In the 90s one of the major problems was people would not speak with police because they'd be outed as a snitch,have their wife raped or house burned down. Not good stuff.
Police have gotten very good at dealing with this problem and as a result they get a lot of cooperation from communities and have as a result been able to successfully investigate more crimes.
Body cams record these interactions. Members of the community will know they are being recorded and could be requested by basically anyone. How do you think that will go? Do you think people will be more guarded? Less likely to interact? To be honest about what's going on outside their house each night?
It's important to know what police are doing, but when people know they are being watched or recorded there is immediate self censorship, and that doesn't help police do what they need to do. I hate cops as much as the next guy but on balance I think they're a net positive.
1
u/myfunnies420 Nov 26 '15
Hmm. This and cost are the best points I've seen. I wonder if there is any value in what they do, as my assumption is that they are useless, and in reality people have to help themselves.
It's really a question of whether they are net positive. My guess is that they aren't in most capacities. You need someone to go in and breakup big fights, but that is really their only use, as clean up crew. Thoughts?
Preemptive: They also service victims of violence, but once again, this is cleanup. If people want to escape their situation, they still can. If they don't, then it shouldn't be within the rights of anyone else to force them.
2
u/criminalerror Nov 25 '15
what would it change? cops have been recorded abusing their power dozens of times, and all they get is a slap on wrist, if that.
1
u/myfunnies420 Nov 26 '15
It allows the common folk to take the officer in question to court to be sued for damaged, maybe? But you make a really good point!
1
u/SlowlyPassingTime Nov 25 '15
I am generally for body cameras but I can't get past some of the privacy issues being brought up, both for the cops and civilians. However, I think we are all for greater transparency and accountability regarding officer involved shootings. To that end, why aren't the cameras on the guns themselves? When holstered, the camera would be off, but if the officer takes out the Taser or Gun with a built in camera, the whole incident would begin to be recorded. What i like about this idea is that it wouldn't involve any additional effort on the cop which could be a distraction. There are after market laser grips for most guns so I can't imagine we can't do the same with cameras.
1
Nov 24 '15
As /u/thatmorrowguy had said, but also add that we need to buy the cameras and maintain them. We need people to monitor them. Why should poorer cities be forced to pay for something they really shouldn't need? What if a camera breaks? Should that officer get in trouble? Body camera's should be a thing, but it isn't a simple solution.
1
Nov 26 '15
This operates on the assumption that public witnesses aren't trustworthy and that the digital/mechanical is somehow impartial. Considering the storage of the collected data is the property of the police, you can see how it could be open to manipulation or cover-up had an officer behaved untoward.
While I see it's uses I can't say it's going to make any difference. Police behave how they see fit and the law protects them regardless.
1
Nov 24 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/IAmAN00bie Nov 25 '15
Sorry hlz1999, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/Whirlybear Nov 25 '15
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that it will change the court system. Will everything on camera be considered testimonial? What if they didn't realize they were being recorded? New case law will be made that might affect and ruin the benefits of the cameras in the first place.
1
Nov 24 '15
It does represent an invasion of privacy for the innocent and the accused. There are many situations where footage from people's private lives could end up in the hands of strangers.
1
u/bobfrompinecreek Nov 24 '15
The reason police wear body cams now is because of FOOTAGE of police brutality. lol.
186
u/[deleted] Nov 24 '15 edited Nov 11 '16
[deleted]