Body cams on cops; unintended consequences?

Tom@Hilltop_Machine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Location
Rural Retreat, VA
Folks screaming for body cams might not have thought the process all the way through as this Chief points out. I wear a body cam on interviews and on the few times I wear a uniform working overtime. Some of the places we go and things we hear aren't always suitable for prime time. They can sure help when it comes to complaints against police and in disproving bull shit. I'm used to being recorded: are you??
uhoh_small.gif
uhoh_small.gif
uhoh_small.gif




Quote:
Chief’s Babble….on body cameras.

There has been lots of talk about body cameras lately. Good. I am in favor of every officer wearing one. I believe it will benefit policing far more than anyone could imagine. Let’s look at this, from a few perspectives.

First, These cameras will help me and other police leaders solve the problem of retaliatory complaints. These occur when someone refuses to be accountable for his or her own actions and lodge complaints in order to minimize behavior that resulted in an arrest. We get them here, a few times per year. We have dash cameras and video and sound in our booking area, so we are very fortunate to have an “instant replay.” It has helped me investigate these claims numerous times since I have been the chief. One example of a complaint came from a domestic incident. The arrested person and a relative lodged a complaint of assault and “verbal abuse.” I reviewed every minute of video. I then called the person and his relative in and had them watch. After a couple minutes, both requested that I turn the video off. It involved the arrestee being highly intoxicated, very verbal and very non-complaint with basic requests. It also involved NO misconduct by officers. I advised them that accusing an officer of misconduct and filing a report of that nature was a crime. They left with an understanding. So, for the record, I love body cameras, dash cameras and any other video. They help me do a better job.

Now, for the bad part for citizens. Body cameras are an intrusion into your privacy, believe it or not. Local law enforcement will now become one more spoke in the big wheel of government, taping our interaction with all of YOU. When you call us to your home, we will arrive and hit “record.” The barking dog, neighbor dispute, burglary, identity theft, custody disputes and more will be recorded. When we come to your house for a domestic or a custody/divorce issue, what we record is all public record. Your neighbors, ex-spouses and even enemies can request a copy…and we must provide it. Shortly after that, it will arrive on You Tube. A couple of companies will form on the inter-web, consisting of nothing but body cam footage. It will be a constant, 24 hours per day, seven days per week episode of “Cops”…starring the ordinary American citizen. We get dozens of requests per year for written reports, usually in divorce or neighbor dispute cases. Those could now come with video. Yikes.

The above paragraph is not written to intimidate or scare anyone. It is my opinion of the likely course of this body camera push. In the past, some sensitive issues and locations (the American home) have not been fair game for video. Now, with these cameras in place, defense and civil attorneys will shred the police in court if we chose to not tape some segment of an interaction with the public. It will become a "standard." We will tell them it is because of a victim, child or sensitive situation…and they will accuse us of turning the camera off and abusing authority. This will result in us taping everything, regardless of potential damage and embarrassment to the citizens we are sworn to protect.

All of this is over something that is not as prevalent as some would lead you to believe. Less than two-tenths of one percent of arrests result in the use of deadly force. Those are the facts and those facts are not in dispute.

Welcome to the future. Make sure you are presentable for TV……Chief Oliver
 
this is exactly why Obama is pushing for it. he knows gov't will figure out a way to use it to benefit the gov't not the people
 
Make it happen. I've got nothing to hide. Unlike people with IQ's equal to their belt size, I do what the police officers tell me to do.
 
Yeah I don't think folks have really thought this through.
when do you turn it on? just when you get a call? At what time - when you first get the call, or when you exit the car? Or is it just on all the time?
It really doesn't make sense to have to have LEOs think to stop and turn on a camera when they get a call, or when jumping our of their car in some emergency situation. They've got other stuff to worry about. And then when do you turn it off?
 
Yeah I don't think folks have really thought this through.
when do you turn it on? just when you get a call? At what time - when you first get the call, or when you exit the car? Or is it just on all the time?
It really doesn't make sense to have to have LEOs think to stop and turn on a camera when they get a call, or when jumping our of their car in some emergency situation. They've got other stuff to worry about. And then when do you turn it off?

I was thinking the same thing about turning it on and off. It would really need to record the entire time during an officers shift to avoid them having to think about it, or at least whenever they get out of the car.

Normal law abiding citizens have nothing to fear with this. It is the idiots who should worry.
 
I was thinking the same thing about turning it on and off. It would really need to record the entire time during an officers shift to avoid them having to think about it, or at least whenever they get out of the car.

yeah... lets go through that logic...

What happens when the LEO has to take a shit? Camera goes in with him? I'm sure nobody will have a problem w/ a public record of people in bathrooms. And do we really need a recording of his massive dump? Now, maybe it'd be nice to see he doesn't wash his hands... o_O

so then what about when he talks to other LEOs about a case? Or his supervisor during a performance review? Or his wife calls about their kid being sick? Thats all public record.
 
^^^ Timing of the camera definitely needs to be figured out. We don't need all that recorded, lol.
 
^^^ Timing of the camera definitely needs to be figured out. We don't need all that recorded, lol.

Right, so, when LEO walks into public restroom and their 2 guys carrying out a drug deal right there... their lawyer is gonna get them off b/c he turned off his camera and "clearly treated them unfairly"...
 
The thing about being a cop is.. .you never REALLY know when trouble is going to happen.
 
The thing about being a cop is.. .you never REALLY know when trouble is going to happen.

Right, and if I was in danger, I would rather have the cop act than stop and turn on his camera and possibly miss an opportunity to help.
 
I can't speak on the personal cam, but I'm a firm believer that the dash cam in the car should be switched on automatically if the LEO's lights are rolling. At the point at which the cruiser's lights are engaged, the officer is either in pursuit mode, take down mode or there is some sort of emergency that they are engaged in. Having it engage the second the lights are tripped will keep incidents of a police officer mis-using the lights just to get through traffic quicker. It doesn't happen often, but I have seen it at least once myself.

Personally, I feel that the body cam should be there for the officer's protection and not for the benefit of the citizen, but what do I know? If the officer can turn it on and off at will, odds are pretty good that if they truly are a "crooked" cop, they will conveniently switch it off just prior to doing their crookedness. The most effective camera is one that is unknown. If you know you are on camera, you tend to act differently.
 
I think it'll solve absolutely nothing. It might cut down on some of the brutality and railroading the police have become famous for (doubt it). The eyes watching the footage is not on side with the citizens. Itll still be illegal to film the police in any encounter you have with them. My philosophy is, sure I may not have anything to hide, but I have absolutely nothing to gain by handing out my privacy rights like it was Halloween candy. It'll solve nothing.
 
Last edited:
I think this is a ridiculous idea for solving the perceived/promoted problem of mass numbers of racist, trigger happy LEOs killing innocent peeps. How bout the admin. focuses on the root of the problems with a lawless, violent, callous new society and criminals who respect no authority or fellow American? Obozo, Eric, Al, etc; and most of the media know what is wrong but will not admit or try to address the real problems
 
I think this is a ridiculous idea for solving the perceived/promoted problem of mass numbers of racist, trigger happy LEOs killing innocent peeps. How bout the admin. focuses on the root of the problems with a lawless, violent, callous new society and criminals who respect no authority or fellow American? Obozo, Eric, Al, etc; and most of the media know what is wrong but will not admit or try to address the real problems


You are absolutely right that it's a "perceived" problem that is being pushed using tactics of fear, uncertainty and doubt. When Brown was shot, immediately a lot of misinformation was spread about the case by people that weren't there and just wanted to push their own agenda. Not long after, there was a video of a man getting tazed for not getting out of the car when a police officer asked him to

(video here: )

In it, he "feared for his life" being pulled over by a policeman hundreds of miles away from the Brown incident claiming that police were "pulling people out of their cars and shooting them in the street". Even the most racist dirty cop in movies or TV wouldn't just haul someone out in the street in broad daylight and shoot them. Instead, they took on an attitude of arrogance and that arrogance was perceived as non-compliance.
 
Love the bifurcation of the issue.
Yep you nailed it only possible way we get cameras is if they are public domain. Please, lets not act like we could possibly pass legislation to simply remove this one piece of evidence from public domain.

Sounds like a thin blue line argument to me.
 
In no way is what happened in that video acceptable. Cops are trigger happy (in this case, baton happy). He was being cooperative, gave his papers to them, and was asking questions about what was going on. Kids are in the car. Cops don't like their authority questioned, and over react.
 
If that fool in the video had just done what the police asked him to do, he would not have been tazed and drug out of the car.
 
He was being cooperative, gave his papers to them, and was asking questions about what was going on.

It is hard to hear over the loud woman's voice, but the officers asked him repeatedly to get out of the car. He did not obey their command = tazed and drug out of car.
 
No, I watched it and heard what they were saying to each other. Something about a seat belt ticket? No reason to not say to the dude...."you have warrants, get out" or whatever the reason behind asking him to get out was. A lot of times, cops escalate the situation by not explaining themselves. All too often, cops demand action by yelling and being aggressive, and that pisses people off. It would, and has, pissed me off. Just watch a COPS episode. They walk up on people, yell get down, the person looks confused and gets defensive and then all hell breaks loose. I know cops have a tough job and everyone second guesses them, but acting civil towards each other would go a long way. There are good examples of that too.
 
In no way is what happened in that video acceptable. Cops are trigger happy (in this case, baton happy). He was being cooperative, gave his papers to them, and was asking questions about what was going on. Kids are in the car. Cops don't like their authority questioned, and over react.


It's also unacceptable that she continued her phone conversation after being pulled over. If she genuinely feared for her life, all she needed to do is tell the officer that she would feel more comfortable if he followed her to the police station or an area where she felt safer and continued. I am sure they would have followed her to a different area at a slow rate of speed if that was a genuine concern. Instead, her defiant manner and his body language tell a completely different story. The fact that they handed a phone to a child in the back seat to record the entire thing is pretty telling as well. It's like saying, "here... record this and lets see what the cops do when I say this..."

I'd hate for my kids to ever see me tazed right in front of them, but again - I'd never put myself in that position.
 
I wouldn't put myself in that situation either. They weren't taking to her, they were talking to him. I agree that being on the phone was dumb, but there are more dumb people than smart people in this world. Its gonna happen. If the cops had just told him why they wanted him to step out in a civilized manner, there is a good chance this would not have happened. Cops aren't the brightest bunch, and most people lack common sense, so I hope to never meet a cop like this, even if I am obeying the law
 
I can't imagine the price of everything with cameras, we take communication radios out of cars regularly for the new cop cars coming in service because its a crazy price per car/radio. Idk the price on dash cams but we remove and save every wire and connector to put in the new stuff.
 
I thought the officers were very calm while asking him repeatedly over a few minutes to get out of the car. They told him if he didn't open the door, that they were going to do it for him. He still sat there. Dumbass. A normal person would have gotten out of the car at the first request.
 
Back
Top