BODY CAMS NOW! Gray would be alive today if the officers had been wearing them.

[Vattel]

It's rare that a problem has an clear and obvious solution. The problem of police misconduct is one of those problems. No solution is perfect, of course, but requiring police to wear body cams would dramatically improve police accountability.

[JustAnotherGen]

1. I'm in total agreement Vattel

It's the only way. Too bad if we have to treat the police like children. You turn it off - you get fired. And if there was a wireless feed we could have real time monitoring.

When you are on duty - you aren't your own person. You are the 'peoples' - and damn these folks need lots of monitoring.

[Vattel]

4. well-said and, yes, real time monitoring could even allow advice from a dispassionate observer.

[seabeyond]

2. body cams. no if and butt.. anyway we can take this federal, law? interesting use of supreme court

if htere is a way to make this federal.

[randome]

3. And similar cameras inside all police vehicles.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Quackers]

5. I don't see why this would be a problem.

The government spent billions on new equipment for police after 9/11. This should be required by every department.

[Vattel]

7. They are not very expensive. And when you consider the savings on lawsuits for police violence,

they are really a bargain.

[jeff47]

13. Police records are all public.

That's why they release 911 calls.

So the problem with body cameras is now everything they record is public. Going to the bathroom, taking a statement from a rape victim, talking to a confidential informant, and beating the crap out of an innocent person.

So we should roll them out, but probably need to tweak the public records laws so that some recordings are not automatically public (ie. the first 3 examples probably should require judicial review before release)

[Quackers]

17. As long as they radio in. That they're on break, I think they can turn them off while

Going to the bathroom. In the case of a rape statement, you can bet the defense would subpoena all recordings and statements of the victim. It's just the age we live in. For myself, I have a camera on the outside of my house and a dashcam that records automatically when the ignition is turned on. I'm paranoid about people lying in traffic crashes or other circumstances.

[jeff47]

19. Subpoena != public.

Obviously the defense would get the recording, and the recording could be played in court. But that does not mean the recording would have to be released to the public.

As for radio in-turn off, you can't give them an off switch. Otherwise, they'll use it. "It's so strange that the camera happened to turn off right before that guy got beaten. Must've accidentally hit the off switch when I was trying to make sure it was on!"

So record everything, and use procedures to keep private what should remain private.

[Quackers]

22. When they take a break, they are required to contact dispatch and inform them.

As long as the camera was off only during break, I don't see an issue. If it turns out that the officers camera was off while on duty, or God forbid while killing someone, the officer should be charged with tampering/destroying evidence as well as any possible murder charges that might ensue.

The biggest issue I see with recording every second of every officers day is storage of that data. I would expect the department to keep video recordings for at least 3 years. This is just my opinion though.

[jeff47]

23. You're leaving "oops, I forgot" as a defense.

Also, radio in that you're going on break, then beat your victim. "I ran into him on my way to the bathroom, and he attacked me! Honest!"

And without that camera running, you may not have enough for those murder charges.

The biggest issue I see with recording every second of every officers day is storage of that data.

It doesn't need to be particularly high-resolution or high-frame-rate video. So it doesn't need to take up a lot of space. At least "A lot of space" in an era where a terabyte of storage is $40.

We can't stop all ways of blocking the camera - electrical tape over the lens would be extremely effective - but we can make it so it requires obvious intent.

[Quackers]

26. You're right. If the officer has malicious intent, there's no way to prevent an oops moment.

His clothing accidentally got in the way, the camera lens was twisted away during the struggle, etc...
My goal would be to institute this in the quickest and most accepted way possible. If we demand that the camera records every single second, the police unions will have body cam requirements tied up in legislation for years. It would come down to a violation of privacy for the officers. When going to the bathroom, everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. In my opinion, if we demand that the cameras been on even during breaks, then the law we're seeking for body cams would be tossed out as unconstitutional. We are on the same side but vary on how it should be instituted.

[Vattel]

20. I agree that such issues would need to be carefully addressed.

But they don't seem to be a reason to think that cams would not dramatically improve police accountability. Even if police were allowed in special circumstances to turn them off, they would still improve things dramatically when they are on.

[jeff47]

21. "Ooops, I forgot to turn it on after using the bathroom"

You can't give them an off switch.

[Vattel]

27. There are obvious responses here to your particular worry, but I think the main point

is that, even though no solution is perfect, body cams would improve accountability dramatically. Don't you agree?

[jeff47]

28. Yes, but we need to not give them an easy way out

We've already seen cases of police turning off body cams or moving to be out-of-sight of dash cams.

[Vattel]

29. yes, I agree, good point.

[libdem4life]

6. Even Hillary is now advocating it. n/t

[Vattel]

8. Really? Lol, I guess great minds think alike.

[NYC_SKP]

9. Yanno, if they can afford FUCKING MRAPS, then they can damn well afford body cams.

It's unbelievable.

K/R

[Recursion]

11. They get those for free, I'm pretty sure

because otherwise the Pentagon has to go leave them out in the Mojave.

[mopinko]

18. obama said the other day that they are making funds available for bodycams.

i think they are getting ready to roll them out in chicago. it is an issue here.

and i agree, the pentagon gives them mraps, guns, ammo, all manner of shiny shiny. they can afford the damn cams.

[NYC_SKP]

24. Glad to hear!

Cops get the gear but not the training.

[Recursion]

10. Maybe. Garner was on tape and it didn't seem to matter (nt)

[Vattel]

14. Actually, Garner being on tape did help matters by drawing attention to the abuse.

You are right that the officers were not charged, and that is sad, but if they had been wearing body cams, the context of the abuse would have been made clearer and we would know whether officers were there just to harass or retaliate against Garner.

Again, no solution is perfect, but this one would help a lot.

[Recursion]

15. Oh, agreed, I'm not against the idea, just being depressed

Actually I even grant to some extent the cops' claims that brutality complaints go down because
1. People knowing they are being taped don't resist as much, and
2. People who know they have been taped don't file false brutality reports.

The number of both of those categories is probably greater than zero. And it should definitely improve cops' behavior too.

[mythology]

12. I don't think you can support that contention

If the injury that resulted in Gray's death was during the rough ride, the camera wouldn't have necessarily helped.

The cops need better training and legitimate legal punishment when they are found to have screwed up. And punishment needs to be extended to cops who help cover it up. For example in the Rice case, why did the other cop who didn't shoot, go with the story of the cop who did? Also why did that cop not have his excessive force settlement in his record? If those cops faced legal sanctions, they might think twice.

[Vattel]

16. I don't think it would have been easy to get away with doing a "rough ride"

while wearing a body cam. The cam would probably detect the fact that the prisoner was not properly seated in the van with a seat belt and would also detect sharp turns and such. But even if I am wrong about that, cams inside all police vehicles (as suggested by Randome) would solve that problem.

[erpowers]

25. Ran After Him For No Reason

I also think police should be required to wear body cameras and I am not just trying to contradict you. However, Freddie Gray would still be alive today if the police had not chased after him for no reason. It was reported that police chased after Gray even though he was not suspected of a crime. The police said they chased after Gray because he made eye contact with them and then ran.

Freddie Gray would also probably be alive today if the police had not been allowed to perform a rough ride. The police have admitted that they purposely drove Gray to the police station using a route that had numerous left and right turns without strapping him in with a seatbelt. I do believe the police have also admitted this was done solely to punish Gray. I also believe the police have admitted that Gray asked for medical assistance, or said he was injured multiple times.

You are right that we need all police to be required to wear body cameras. We also need to put an end to tactics like rough rides. Also, we probably should at least have rules concerning chasing after a person who is not wanted in a crime.

[Vattel]

30. I agree that body cams alone are not enough. In Oakland body cams plus better training has helped.

This is from December of 2014:

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said Wednesday that there’s been a “significant decrease” in use-of-force incidents by her city’s police officers since they began wearing body cameras four years ago.

Quan said Oakland police officers had 2,186 use-of-force incidents in 2009, the last year that no officers wore body cameras, and that number declined to 836 such incidents last year and to only 572 incidents so far this year, with just two weeks remaining.

She noted that President Obama recently announced his support for the use of body cameras by officers in the wake of protests across the country after grand jury decisions in Missouri and New York not to charge police officers in the deaths of two unarmed black men.

Quan said in a brief phone interview tonight that she believes officers’ use of body cameras is “a major reason” that use-of-force incidents have declined but isn’t the only reason.

The mayor said better training for officers in handling potentially violent confrontations is another reason such incidents have decreased.
Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said Wednesday that there’s been a “significant decrease” in use-of-force incidents by her city’s police officers since they began wearing body cameras four years ago.

Quan said Oakland police officers had 2,186 use-of-force incidents in 2009, the last year that no officers wore body cameras, and that number declined to 836 such incidents last year and to only 572 incidents so far this year, with just two weeks remaining.

She noted that President Obama recently announced his support for the use of body cameras by officers in the wake of protests across the country after grand jury decisions in Missouri and New York not to charge police officers in the deaths of two unarmed black men.

Quan said in a brief phone interview tonight that she believes officers’ use of body cameras is “a major reason” that use-of-force incidents have declined but isn’t the only reason.

The mayor said better training for officers in handling potentially violent confrontations is another reason such incidents have decreased.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/12/17/oakland-mayor-says-police-body-cameras-have-cut-use-of-force-incidents-by-60-in-4-years-jean-quan-oakland-police-department-opd-officer-involved-shooting/