Video cameras on beat cops?

[riggerrob 643]

What do you think of beat cops (foot patrol) wearing video cameras all the time they are on duty
Existing cameras can be mounted on hats, spectacles or vests.
Some police forces have noted dramatic decreases in complaints from citizens.
Some prosecutors have noted reductions in courtroom debates.

If you were a beat cop, would you want internal affairs to second-guess every decision you made on duty?
How would a police officers' union react if one of their members was disciplined/fired solely on video evidence?

What if fire-fighters were ordered to wear cameras?
What if EMTs were ordered to wear cameras?

[cvfd1399 0]

As a firefighter you put a camera on my chest, im gone..Not because we plan on doing illegal activities, or are incompetent in our job. We do what we can because we must. I don't need myself or any of my guys split second guessing what to do because a camera is present. Ask Marcus Lutrell what second guessing to do because of what the media would say did for him and his guys.

[billvon 3,070]

>As a firefighter you put a camera on my chest, im gone.. . . I don't need myself
>or any of my guys split second guessing what to do because a camera is present.

So you'd refuse to fight a fire in a building that had reliable/complete CCTV coverage, because you and your guys would be second guessing yourself?

[cvfd1399 0]

Negative, you are putting words in my mouth. That isn't the same as having one strapped to your chest 24/7 recording video and audio. The CCD type of thing exists all the time and no one pays attention to it.

I guess your gonna say next that once you strap a camera to yourself you forget about it, and go on about normal tasks. If so you and all 2020023003034 other skydivers better take that gopro under 200 jumps argument and take a walk.

[normiss 851]

You might want to be prepared to jump ship.
I see this becoming a lot more commonplace than it already is, and it IS already commonplace.

[billvon 3,070]

>Negative, you are putting words in my mouth. That isn't the same as having one
>strapped to your chest 24/7 recording video and audio.

So is the difference that it's on you rather than external? If the requirement that all sites were videoed from some other place than on your person, would that be OK?

>The CCD type of thing exists all the time and no one pays attention to it.

That would quickly become the case with chest mounted cameras as well.

>I guess your gonna say next that once you strap a camera to yourself you forget
>about it, and go on about normal tasks.

No, wasn't going to make that argument. I just wanted your take on it, and why you thought that way.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]I don't need myself or any of my guys split second guessing what to do because a camera is present. Ask Marcus Lutrell what second guessing to do because of what the media would say did for him and his guys.

[cvfd1399 0]

Its also a MASSIVE tool used to "gotcha" employees. Two departments here have installed cameras in the stations for "security" once in each department an employee was caught bitching about command between coworkers and was written up for it. Think NSA overuse of privileges on a micro level.

[normiss 851]

What makes public servants different from the rest of society?

I've fired people for sexual assault and another for having sex at work. Couldn't have done it without the video.

[Amazon 7]

riggerrob

What do you think of beat cops (foot patrol) wearing video cameras all the time they are on duty
Existing cameras can be mounted on hats, spectacles or vests.
Some police forces have noted dramatic decreases in complaints from citizens.
Some prosecutors have noted reductions in courtroom debates.

If you were a beat cop, would you want internal affairs to second-guess every decision you made on duty?
How would a police officers' union react if one of their members was disciplined/fired solely on video evidence?

What if fire-fighters were ordered to wear cameras?
What if EMTs were ordered to wear cameras?

Line of duty public employees????
ALL of the above.. wear them.

We are a society under surveillance.. put the so called sheep dogs on too.... keeps em more honest.. as overwhelming evidence shows.

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

What makes public servants different from the rest of society?

I've fired people for sexual assault and another for having sex at work. Couldn't have done it without the video.

That isnt the same as talking shit about your command staff amongst coworkers is it....Come on man stop being a troll.

[skycop 0]

I wear one, it's a great investment.
Complaints drop because many suspect's behavior changes dramatically when they see the camera.

I've had several who were getting ready to fight, once they saw the camera they knew they were had. Kinda like running from a helicopter..........;)

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[grue 1]

Helps protect the police from bullshit complaints.

Helps protect the public from shitty cops.

Cops MUST NOT have the ability to turn off the camera or delete footage, and in cases where the camera "mysteriously" didn't work their word must be worth no more than that of the person whose accounting of events they are disputing.

cavete terrae.

[skycop 0]

Quote

Cops MUST NOT have the ability to turn off the camera or delete footage, and in cases where the camera "mysteriously" didn't work their word must be worth no more than that of the person whose accounting of events they are disputing.

It's not that easy, the officer should have the ability to control the video. Privacy concerns, confidentiality issues, etc.
The practical technology issues as they related to departments networks. I once crashed an entire large network by storing too many video files on it.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[grue 1]

skycop

Quote

Cops MUST NOT have the ability to turn off the camera or delete footage, and in cases where the camera "mysteriously" didn't work their word must be worth no more than that of the person whose accounting of events they are disputing.

It's not that easy, the officer should have the ability to control the video. Privacy concerns, confidentiality issues, etc.
The practical technology issues as they related to departments networks. I once crashed an entire large network by storing too many video files on it.

Your IT department is terrible.

Officers should be able to have a supervisor or someone turn off video with a proper logged request. If they can turn off or delete to cover up malfeasance, it will happen. How many times has dash camera footage "just happened" to not be available that would exonerate someone? Sometimes it magically "reappears" later but I do not give the benefit of the doubt to the party with power to abuse.

cavete terrae.

[Stumpy 284]

skycop

It's not that easy, the officer should have the ability to control the video. Privacy concerns, confidentiality issues, etc.

Sorry, but thats a copout (pun not intended). You either ARE accountable for your actions or you aren't. Being able to choose when you are or aren't is exactly the problem we have now. If you give the officer ability to control the video, it means it will only ever be used in their favour.

ETA - meant to comment on this as well

Quote

The practical technology issues as they related to departments networks. I once crashed an entire large network by storing too many video files on it.

Is essentially a non-issue. IF this was to come in to a greater extent, of course the infrastructure needs to exist to support it. It's not just a matter of nipping down to the shops and buying some gopros.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[billvon 3,070]

>Sorry, but thats a copout (pun not intended). You either ARE accountable for
>your actions or you aren't. Being able to choose when you are or aren't is exactly
>the problem we have now.

Exactly. If it's a tool to use to ensure that both sides are accountable for their actions, great. If it's a tool that cops can use only when the video paints them in a good light, then it will lead to even more "us vs them" "it's a war and sometimes there's collateral damage" problems.

[skycop 0]

Technology is a dual edged sword.
In a perfect world it would work, all the time, without issues.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
I've used the technology, have you? I've seen it's benefits and limitations.
There are lapel vids out there of incidents, people still see what they want to see.
The ones we use are fairly simple, but not very durable. One hard rainstorm and it doesn't work properly for a period of time. I've also broken several clips that hold the camera. Ruggedized systems can be very expensive, require software that is expensive, and most small police departments don't have that type of infrastructure.
These are realities, I live this stuff everyday.
The internet has made everyone an expert. Please, if you think you have what it takes, apply, take the test, put on the funny outfit, and have at it.....

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[riggerrob 643]

..... I once crashed an entire large network by storing too many video files on it.

................................................

Admit it!
You were watching porn on a company computer!
Hah!
Hah!

[riggerrob 643]

Police and the public are in a arms-race to see who can bring a better camera to the scene of confrontations between police and citizens?

[billvon 3,070]

> Ruggedized systems can be very expensive, require software that is expensive,
>and most small police departments don't have that type of infrastructure.

As I am sure you are aware that is changing rapidly. A police department that does not have a single person who can handle a USB device-to-computer transfer is becoming increasingly rare. Technology is certainly not the limiting factor here.

>The internet has made everyone an expert. Please, if you think you have what it
>takes, apply, take the test, put on the funny outfit, and have at it.....

I have no desire to do so.

I have, however, designed streaming video systems that allow transmission (and storage) of video in close to real-time. Have you? And if not, does that make you unqualified to have an opinion about it?

[skycop 0]

I wish,
At least I could have enjoyed crashing the system, instead of the just hearing the IT guys bitch........

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[grue 1]

skycop

Ruggedized systems can be very expensive, require software that is expensive, and most small police departments don't have that type of infrastructure.

Yeah I suppose it's hard to afford the essentials when you're buying discounted tank, grenade launchers and drones…

cavete terrae.

[skycop 0]

Then by all means Bill, please design a system that works all the time, in all conditions, and is durable enough to stand up to repeated and lengthy use.
I hope you do and make lots of money doing it.

Quote

As I am sure you are aware that is changing rapidly. A police department that does not have a single person who can handle a USB device-to-computer transfer is becoming increasingly rare. Technology is certainly not the limiting factor here.

Cost, practicality, and durability are limiting factors in the technology Bill.
Again, the internet has made everyone an expert...........

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[riggerrob 643]

Back when cockpit video recorders were introduced, the Airline Pilots' Association (union) angrily declared that they did want video footage used to fire or discipline their member pilots. ALPA insisted that pilots be able to delete footage at the end of routine flights. It was common practice for the captain to ask the co-pilot "nothing unusual on that flight?"
As soon as the co-pilot confirmed "nothing unusual" the captain pushed the delete button.