Man our cops are FUCKED........

[blackrock13]

Google is your friend Blackrock. You really didn't think this one out before you answered did you? Of course you didn't.


> September 19, 2011 By News Staff


The U.S. Department of Justice has granted $500,000 to the Phoenix Police Department and the Arizona State University College of Public Programs to buy 50 video camera systems that police officers will wear on their uniforms.

> Ring is part of a growing number of police officers across the country wearing body cameras. He's also a member of the only police department in South Hampton Roads using the cameras, although the Suffolk Police Department just bought 20 cameras through a grant.

Ring is one of roughly 90 Chesapeake officers assigned a body cam.


> BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, Wash. -- Four Bainbridge Island police officers are now wearing a video camera on their chest.

Commander Sue Shultz says the cameras document encounters with the public and provide evidence


That was all just from the first page I looked at.

20 cameras and 50 cameras are not 4000. Body cameras are used by special units, but have specific applications, not suitable for general used for reasons already outlined.

There are also legal problems as some states have very restricted laws on the books making the recordings challengeable and then there are the privacy problems for law abiding citizens. All the problems are not just technical.

Maybe you should have read further in to what you looked at.

Here's points raised in some of those pilot projects in Canada.

The widespread use of cameras by police in Canada has raised the ire of civil groups concerned about invasion of privacy. Nathalie Des Rosiers, general counsel with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said the video should be available to those who are recorded under freedom of information, which Saskatoon's police service isn't covered by.
Des Rosiers said there should be protocols established for the safekeeping of the data. If the cameras are triggered by police officers, even through emergency systems, there is a bias, she said.
"They do not completely help in terms of ensuring there is transparency," Des Rosiers said. "Before the cameras are on, it does not prove the police are not abusing anybody's right."
While police forces across Canada are equipping officers with cameras clipped to bike helmets, lapels and vests, police in Saskatoon are still focused on getting the in-car camera program off the ground before forging ahead, Engele said.
In Victoria, police tested six mini-cameras mounted on bike helmets or sunglasses two years ago. The cameras proved successful in identifying a suspect in a violent assault during a rowdy Canada Day. But the program wasn't expanded after the pilot program despite the cameras being trumpeted as less costly and more versatile than dashboard cameras.


Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/...atoon+police/6038578/story.html#ixzz1tlkoNXzJ


or how about his one;


One of the biggest issues with the body cameras, which came up at a committee hearing in Olympia last week, lies in the state’s complex disclosure laws, which could prevent police from releasing videos recorded by cop cams until after the statute of limitations on criminal and civil cases related to the recorded videos have passed. That could make it nearly impossible to obtain the videos for use in a civil misconduct lawsuit against the police department.

http://publicola.com/2012/01/25/harrell-asks-city-attorney-to-review-cop-cam-regulations/

Does the same problem exist in Canada? Let's have the lawyer talk about that one.

 

[nottyboi]

The OP's story is about one bad cop. Some of you think that the majority of cops are bad now.

If people know about bad cops, they should call the Commissioner's office. I know of a young cop who was selling steroids. He got busted when they wiretapped his cruiser. Now he's a correctional services driver (or was, last time I heard).

There are some bad cops and a lot of others that help them cover their tracks even though they know full well that makes them AN ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT.

 

[rhuarc29]

Old news, but never going to happen. Some people are already unwilling to talk to police and now that they know they are going to be video taped, will be even less likely to talk. Do you think that a women who has just been beaten by her husband will wan to have her interviewed at her home taped? How about dealing with confidential informant, who won't be very confidential any longer. Which way does the camera point, straight up at his chin so as nor to video innocent people on the street, who already don't like the street cameras. Now there is a camera wherever there is a cop. alive video feed to who, where, and how many people are going to be assigned to listen to all these live feeds?

I have to agree with Blackrock here. Forcing officers to equip cameras will probably hamstring the best (and worst) of them. We can't have our officers afraid to act...nor can we have them acting out of turn. They need more oversight and they need an attitude adjustment. And when I say more oversight, I'm not talking about hiring hundreds of people to keep them in check. I mean the people who should already be keeping them in check need to do their fucking jobs, rather than handing out ticket quotas....

Being an officer is about keeping the peace and serving the general public. Not lording your power over the masses. I can understand that an air of authority is necessary in some situations, but you come off as a douchebag when you use it in all situations.

 

[The Fruity Hare]

20 cameras and 50 cameras are not 4000. Body cameras are used by special units, but have specific applications, not suitable for general used for reasons already outlined.

There are also legal problems as some states have very restricted laws on the books making the recordings challengeable and then there are the privacy problems for law abiding citizens. All the problems are not technical.

Maybe you should have read further in to what you looked at.

You asked a question, and I answered it. This was your question:


Do you know of any Police Services that uses them on any scale

I cited three current examples for you. There was no need to read further into anything.

 

[blackrock13]

You asked a question, and I answered it. This was your question:


Do you know of any Police Services that uses them on any scale

I cited three current examples for you. There was no need to read further into anything.

you are right, i shouldn't have said 'any size' as i left myself open for the project of 4 camera on for officers. It would be interesting to see if they last or are expanded for reason already stated, including price, If the figure stated are right, it's $10,000 an officer (?). i also should have been m ore clear on 'using them; not wanting to included test/piolot programs.

Are they expanding them or continuing them? The non technical problems still exist and will continue to exist. They have limited use and will cause the general public, or special sectors of the public to distrust or to not cooperate even more, if the cam,era become widely used and known.

from a report on the Bainbridge program; http://www.komonews.com/news/local/119597744.html


Last August, Seattle Police Officer Ian Birk shot and killed John T. Williams after Birk claimed Williams lunged at him with a knife. But at the inquest into Williams' death inquest even witnesses standing a few feet away admitted they couldn't see exactly what happened. Had Birk been wearing a camera at the time, there would presumably be fewer questions about the incident.

However, the Seattle Police Guild won't let officers to wear uniform cameras. The guild say the cameras would interfere with police work. It's pretty tough for an officer to get a suspect to talk while wearing a camera, the guild says.

From; http://shawngray.ca/?p=1195

Canada is currently free of state-run city-wide CCTV systems because of this very issue. By having cameras everywhere, at all times, it watches everyone assuming they’ll all be guilty at some point. We have laws that protect our privacy, forcing police to have probably cause to search our person and possessions. They also require probable cause to setup surveillance on our homes, offices, etc. The implementation of police body-cams would be in violation of our privacy, as their use would not require a warrant.
Arguments that the body-cameras would result in better service by the police, with less abuse of authority, are questionable. As the officer can choose not to turn on the camera until after they’ve begun to assault someone, it enables them to twist facts to deflect their actions onto the victims they’re assaulting. Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto have all had issues recently with police brutality, and instuting body-cameras would not have prevented these crimes.
The police body-cameras currently being mulled over by the Ottawa Police constitute a potential invasion of personal privacy, and also come with a very steep price tag, the very reason the program was cancelled by the Victoria Police Department. The resources that would be sunk into setting up and upkeeping the surveillance system, could be better utilized in promoting preventative action. To call on a couple of apt lines: Cameras don’t stop crime, they merely record them. If you’re watching everyone, you’re watching no one.

The Phoenix program is also a 'pilot program' involving 50 of 3500 officers and dealing with same legal and social concerns as others programs

During the pilot program, Phoenix police tested Scottsdale-based TASER International's Axon cameras, which are more obvious in their appearance than traditional covert cameras of the same type, and come with a more heftier price tag. The cost of Axon cameras are about $1,700, plus an annual $1,200 each to archive the video footage. Likewise, a comparable wireless Bluetooth covert camera from any local security store runs about $200. The grant doesn't specify which brand of spy camera is to be used, but does require the police agency to enlist a research partner. In the case of Phoenix it will be A.S.U., who will collect and analyze the data and calculate the effectiveness of their efforts.
The "Candid-Camera" officer video pilot program was one of 34 recommendations developed by a Phoenix task force last January to help improve relations between the police department and the community. The task force came into being in April, 2010, after several incidents involving the police angered citizens, including a March 2010 incident which saw City Councilman Michael Johnson, an Afro-American, wrestled to the ground and handcuffed by a White police officer.
With the eye of "Big Brother" becoming more prevalent in our daily lives now, and technology providing a video recorder to anyone with a cell phone, providing police officers with wearable hidden spy cameras is the logical next step in the progression. How this plays out over time and the legal impact it could carry will be questions that will no doubt be discussed, but for now it may give us pause to be mindful of what we say and how we respond the next time we are confronted by an officer of the law.




Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6532797

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I have to agree with Blackrock here. Forcing officers to equip cameras will probably hamstring the best (and worst) of them. We can't have our officers afraid to act...nor can we have them acting out of turn. They need more oversight and they need an attitude adjustment. And when I say more oversight, I'm not talking about hiring hundreds of people to keep them in check. I mean the people who should already be keeping them in check need to do their fucking jobs, rather than handing out ticket quotas....

Being an officer is about keeping the peace and serving the general public. Not lording your power over the masses. I can understand that an air of authority is necessary in some situations, but you come off as a douchebag when you use it in all situations.

Naw, cops wearing cameras 24/7 is the way of the future, trust me. Even a lot of cops want to wear cameras to cut down on false police brutality accusations.

Right now they're still working out a few bugs, but when the technology becomes cheaper and more user friendly, every cop in N.A. will be wearing body cams

 

[fmahovalich]

I think in general cameras will help all involved.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I think in general cameras will help all involved

I agree.

I once got a ticket for going through a red light when a cop car was 2 cars behind me. I swore it was amber, but he said it was red. I would have loved to replay his video tape to see who was right

 

[Joe-Dart54]

it's nothing new there will always be good n bad ppl

 

[blackrock13]

Naw, cops wearing cameras 24/7 is the way of the future, trust me. Even a lot of cops want to wear cameras to cut down on false police brutality accusations.

Right now they're still working out a few bugs, but when the technology becomes cheaper and more user friendly, every cop in N.A. will be wearing body cams

You still don't get it.

It's just not the technical problems. The laws have to be changed in many jurisdictions. So tell us, how a wired up cop talks to a criminal informant? Does the police officers who are wired have to wear a tag that tells the public that they are? You might want to look that one up, before you answer. Is the camera on the whole time during the cops shift or can he selectively turn it on and off? There already have been challenges and will be more in the future when the general public becomes aware. If they are so great why are some of the Services, some you so proudly pointed out were 'using' them(not really), are rethinking them?

 

[Julian]

It's not hard to see why the bad cops will oppose these cameras.

 

[blackrock13]

It's not hard to see why the bad cops will oppose these cameras.

Oddly enough the hardest opposition might come form the general public, for reasons already stated. Think of the stink that was raised when all those cameras were set up down town, and the police had to modify their plan, cutting back on the numbers, take some down after the holiday season and such. I like having cameras in public areas, they don't discriminate, and the quality of video is much better and work very well. We already have out image taken 100x a day in toronto. In countries like Britain it's more like a 1000. with that kind of surveilllance yhhey are able to respond, follow up and solve crimes very quickly.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

You still don't get it.

It's just not the technical problems. The laws have to be changed in many jurisdictions. So tell us, how a wired up cop talks to a criminal informant? Does the police officers who are wired have to wear a tag that tells the public that they are? You might want to look that one up, before you answer. Is the camera on the whole time during the cops shift or can he selectively turn it on and off?

All those challenges you just listed can, and eventually will, be overcome.

If cops didnt think they could be overcome, do you really think they wouldve started that many pilot projects throughout North-America??

 

[blackrock13]

All those challenges you just listed can, and eventually will, be overcome.

If cops didnt think they could be overcome, do you really think they wouldve started that many pilot projects throughout North-America??

Considering how many Police Services there are in North America, that number of pilot programs is a spit in a bucket and many of them are answering questions that will suggest to others not to start them.

You still haven't come up with a solution for dealing with CI's and sensitive interviews, dealing with people who already don't want to talk to the cops, or whether the cameras are to be left on or can they be turned off at will or any of the other problems legal or social. Sticky, isn't it?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Considering how many Police Services there are in North America, that number of pilot programs is a spit in a bucket and many of them are answering questions that will suggest to others not to start them.

You still haven't come up with a solution for dealing with CI's and sensitive interviews, dealing with people who already don't want to talk to the cops, or whether the cameras are to be left on or can they be turned off at will or any of the other problems legal or social. Sticky, isn't it?

Not at all sticky, at the end of their shift videotape of their daily encounters goes into secure storage. Same way cops now deal with informant's addresses, pictures and other info, it goes into confidential files and the public is not allowed access

 

[blackrock13]

Not at all sticky, at the end of their shift videotape of their daily encounters goes into secure storage. Same way cops now deal with informant's addresses, pictures and other info, it goes into confidential files and the public is not allowed access

Aside from the fact that wasn't the question I asked, although now it explains much of your difficulty getting it. Securing the information is the easy part. You simply don't understand english. I don't really feel like asking a third time.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Aside from the fact that wasn't the question I asked, although now it explains much of your difficulty getting it. Securing the information is the easy part. You simply don't understand english. I don't really feel like asking a third time.

You asked about CI's (confidential informants), I answered that part.
So that was (part of) the question you asked

You still haven't come up with a solution for dealing with CI's and sensitive interviews, dealing with people who already don't want to talk to the cops, or whether the cameras are to be left on or can they be turned off at will or any of the other problems legal or social

As for your other drivel.

Sensitive interviews are already taped, whether criminals or witnesses like it or not.
If people dont wanna speak to cops having a camera on them wont make any difference then anyways, because they still wont speak to the cops.

And it should be mandatory that video be left on at all times. At least until their shift ends.

Do you not think cops have thought about all these scenarios you mentioned before they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their pilot projects??

 

[blackrock13]

Not at all sticky, at the end of their shift videotape of their daily encounters goes into secure storage. Same way cops now deal with informant's addresses, pictures and other info, it goes into confidential files and the public is not allowed access

You asked about CI's (confidential informants), I answered that part.
So that was (part of) the question you asked



As for your other drivel.

Sensitive interviews are already taped, whether criminals or witnesses like it or not.
If people dont wanna speak to cops having a camera on them wont make any difference then anyways, because they still wont speak to the cops.

And it should be mandatory that video be left on at all times. At least until their shift ends.

Do you not think cops have thought about all these scenarios you mentioned before they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their pilot projects??

If you don't like police and tend not to want to talk to them you'll be even 'less' likely to talk knowing it's on camera; it's human nature. Even the pilot projects are finding that out as well as the legal aspects of the information gathered which you didn't touch and obviously think you know more about than the legal councils who raise these questions.

CI info goes into special files with limited access. The CI video taped information mixed, in with all the other daily information, will have to be reviewed and transcribed to a second file. Editing tape is more complicated than just dropping notes in a file, therefore taking more office time, which people think is too large already, so let's make it more complicated. You still didn't answer the point of constantly taping the cops shift or be allowed to turn the camera off and on as desired, which causes other problem. If he can turn it off and on at while what's to stop him from selectively doing to do something he doesn't recorded, explaining nothing was happening. It's like pulling teeth with you, but your tap dance is just hilarious.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

You still didn't answer the point of constantly taping the cops shift or be allowed to turn the camera off and on as desired, which causes other problem. If he can turn it off and on at while what's to stop him from selectively doing to do something he doesn't recorded, explaining nothing was happening. It's like pulling teeth with you, but your tap dance is just hilarious

And it should be mandatory that video be left on at all times. At least until their shift ends

^^^ Reading comprehension??!!

You make the video so that it has a date/time stamp on it. If the officer turns his camera off he can be charged with obstruction of justice

 

[blackrock13]

You asked about CI's (confidential informants), I answered that part.
So that was (part of) the question you asked

As for your other drivel.

Sensitive interviews are already taped, whether criminals or witnesses like it or not.
If people dont wanna speak to cops having a camera on them wont make any difference then anyways, because they still wont speak to the cops.

And it should be mandatory that video be left on at all times. At least until their shift ends.

Do you not think cops have thought about all these scenarios you mentioned before they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their pilot projects??

Sensitive interviews don't always take place in the interview rooms. They often take place in the field.

As for thinking about all these problems, apparently the reports I offered earlier make it clear they didn't, but have realized them since. You obviously didn't read the any of the references as they clearly mentioned many of the problems raised by your suggestions, plus the legal problem you still haven't touched.