Watched cops can be good cops

http://reason.com/archives/2013/08/30/watched-cops-are-polite-cops

This is a really good idea. Earlier this year, a 12-month study by Cambridge University researchers revealed that when the city of Rialto, California, required its cops to wear cameras, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and the use of force by officers dropped by almost 60 percent. Watched cops are polite cops.
Jay Stanley, a policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), calls police-worn video cameras “a win/win for both the public and the police.” Win/win because video recordings help shield officers from false accusations of abuse as well as protecting the public against police misconduct.

Click to expand...

The question is: how long will it take the cops realize the cameras are more of an advantage than a threat? They know we are out thyere recording and videoing them, but sometimes it does not seem to matter. Maybe with penalties for not wearing and running their own cameras, along with possible "improvements" in discipline because it was recorded on the cop camera, we might see changes. I'm just thinking a year may not be long enough for those changes to happen and become embedded.

stay safe.

I imagine, for some, the reality-TV effect will kick in. Their behavior may be altered at first, being constantly aware of the camera. Soon, though, it will become part of the background. They will forget it is there, and they will show their true colors.

It will only be after some harsh (possibly criminal) punishment that permanent change will be caused by these cameras.

eye95 said:

I imagine, for some, the reality-TV effect will kick in. Their behavior may be altered at first, being constantly aware of the camera. Soon, though, it will become part of the background. They will forget it is there, and they will show their true colors.

Click to expand...

Video only matters if somebody cares what you do on it.

Look at Daniel Harless. It took THREE videos of him threatening to murder people to get him off the street, and the arbitrator's decision may well put him back on the street where he can finally murder somebody.

Officer Alvin Weems of the Chicago PD MURDERED a man standing under a bank of transit authority video cameras and he was NEVER administratively punished for it OR criminally prosecuted:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicag...n-weems-michael-pleasance/Content?oid=1264452

Deanimator said:

Video only matters if somebody cares what you do on it.

Look at Daniel Harless. It took THREE videos of him threatening to murder people to get him off the street, and the arbitrator's decision may well put him back on the street where he can finally murder somebody.

Officer Alvin Weems of the Chicago PD MURDERED a man standing under a bank of transit authority video cameras and he was NEVER administratively punished for it OR criminally prosecuted:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicag...n-weems-michael-pleasance/Content?oid=1264452

Click to expand...

Don't forget (former) officer Stephen Heimsness:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Family-sues-Madison-officer-over-fatal-shooting-4771537.php

This is a really good idea. Earlier this year, a 12-month study by Cambridge University researchers revealed that when the city of Rialto, California, required its cops to wear cameras, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and the use of force by officers dropped by almost 60 percent. Watched cops are polite cops.
Jay Stanley, a policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), calls police-worn video cameras “a win/win for both the public and the police.” Win/win because video recordings help shield officers from false accusations of abuse as well as protecting the public against police misconduct.

Click to expand...

No one else has said it, so I'll say it.

When complaints fall 88% and force falls 60%, its a big neon sign pointing to what they were doing before the cameras.

Eighty-eight percent!?! What the hell kind of cops were they when they weren't being watched?

Almost 60% drop in use of force!?! What kind of abusive animals were they when they weren't being watched?

Citizen said:

No one else has said it, so I'll say it.

When complaints fall 88% and force falls 60%, its a big neon sign pointing to what they were doing before the cameras.

Eighty-eight percent!?! What the hell kind of cops were they when they weren't being watched?

Almost 60% drop in use of force!?! What kind of abusive animals were they when they weren't being watched?

Click to expand...

Big numbers can be deceiving. A drop of 60% may merely mean that they went from 5 incidents to 2. There are a great many other factors that we are not made privy to. I suspect the raw numbers were pretty low and that the actual changes were not statistically significant.

Whenever you read stats, assume you are being lied to by somone. Not that you are, but it is better to be suspicious than to be made a fool of.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

I wonder if anybody read anything beyond the FUQ I posted, because immediately following that was where the author said

In order to make sure that both the public and police realize the greatest benefits from body-worn video cameras, a number of policies need to be implemented. For example, police officers must be subject to stiff disciplinary sanctions if they fail to turn their cameras on each time they interact with the public. In addition, items obtained during an unrecorded encounter would be deemed a violation of the subject’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure and excluded as evidence, unless there were extenuating circumstances, such as a broken camera. Similarly, failure to record an incident for which a patrolman is accused of misconduct should create a presumption against that officer.

Click to expand...

Obviously the presence of cameras alone will not have much impact beyond the immediate novelty of the situation. It will take implementing strong policies - ones that the police officers and their unions/fraternal organizations can be counted on to object to - to have any chance of success. And there is little chance that that management at both the LEO and city/county administration levels will put those policies in place without judicial coercion and oversight.

There are not sufficient words to express my disappointment that such is most likely the case.

stay safe.

arab1302 said:

Big numbers can be deceiving. A drop of 60% may merely mean that they went from 5 incidents to 2. There are a great many other factors that we are not made privy to. I suspect the raw numbers were pretty low and that the actual changes were not statistically significant.

Whenever you read stats, assume you are being lied to by somone. Not that you are, but it is better to be suspicious than to be made a fool of.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

I considered that. But, even so, from five incidents to two is still a huge drop.

And, think about it. If use of force dropped from five times a year to anything lower, we're talking about Mayberry RFD in the first place.

About the only way to render those numbers meaningless at such a low scale would be to find out that one cop cop was responsible for almost all of the previous force-uses, and he resigned and wasn't present during the camera period.

On a related note, a young trend in police is statistical or predictive policing. Some PDs are using statistical analysis about crime to increase patrols. Then, they use this same data to justify questionable detentions in "high crime areas". Too bad for them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If they want to claim using statistics is valid, they get the other side of the coin, too.

Citizen said:

No one else has said it, so I'll say it.

When complaints fall 88% and force falls 60%, its a big neon sign pointing to what they were doing before the cameras.

Eighty-eight percent!?! What the hell kind of cops were they when they weren't being watched?

Almost 60% drop in use of force!?! What kind of abusive animals were they when they weren't being watched?

Click to expand...

Global warming caused the drop ... oh wait, there was no global warning during that time period.

Citizen said:

No one else has said it, so I'll say it.

When complaints fall 88% and force falls 60%, its a big neon sign pointing to what they were doing before the cameras.

Eighty-eight percent!?! What the hell kind of cops were they when they weren't being watched?

Almost 60% drop in use of force!?! What kind of abusive animals were they when they weren't being watched?

Click to expand...

Some (certainly not all or even most) of the dropoff is surely complaints not filed because their bogusness would have easily been established.

I've said it before, I'll say it again... the more people that film cops (something I have done many times) and the more cops that film/audiotape as well, the better off everyone is.

It protects good cops from false complaints. I know our union has taken an aggressive stance towards people who make false complaints . Without video/audio, it is difficult to PROVE a complaint was false, even if officer got a non-sustained or exonerated status. WITH video/audio, it often can be and those people need to be held accountable.

It protects society from bad cops. Let's face it. Statistics prove that the public overwhelming lyviews cops as trustworthy (and for damn good reason) and professional. That's a fact corroborated by gallup poll. Not opinion. Only 3% of people view them as VERY bad and only 7% VIEW THEM as bad. A strong majority view them as good or very good by those metrics, with the rest viewing them as average. Very favorable viewpoints about cops as compared to attorneys, businessmen, members of congress (lol), and journalists. But we rank below nurses , military officers, and teachers. I can live with that. Even with a recording, it may be difficult (often it is) to get a criminal conviction, but it can certainly support discipline up to an including firing, civil trials and in some cases criminal trials. Good cops don't want to work with bad cops. God knows I don't.

It puts cops on notice and thus more likely to do the right thing if they know they are being recorded. I assume every encounter I am having with a person, whether taking a simple report, dealing with an armed robber or whatever, that somebody is recording me. In fact, the last UOF I had, where the guy punched my partner and I tackled him, I had an audience unbeknownst to me at the time, of a half dozen (none recording though, as far as I know) people which is awesome because they offer me protection from a bogus complaint from the violent felon. Hey, I even got a standing ovation! b00ya

It puts citizens on notice that they better act better, because their jackassery is being recorded and could support criminal charges.

Win/win/win/win/win

With the plethora of cameras (cell phones ) out there, it's heartening that there are NOT that many incidents of bad cops caught on tape. When you consider how many cops there are in the US, and how often we are being recorded, it's pretty clear that most cops are doing the right thing. No question.

The last poll I saw showed that over 80% of cops would WANT to be outfitted with body cameras.

As a good cop, I don't fear getting caught on tape doing x. Ok maybe I fear getting caught picking my nose, but that's about it. I fear FALSE complaints and god knows they are common. It benefits a perp to try to turn it around on the arresting officer and place blame on him. Why the heck not? I have found that by using good verbal judo and treating people with respect, I can be assured I will get very few to zero complaints against me, but there's always that one guy who would love nothing more than to try to hurt a cop with a bogus complaint. I'm aware of the incident gordon graham mentions in his classes where a cop pulled over a judge for DUI. Judge didn't do the FST's but threatened the cop with his job, etc. if the cop arrested him. Cop did so, having PC and the judge ended up blowing like a .04 and was not charged. next day cop was called in by his supervisor and told he needed to turn in his gun and badge, he was on suspension based on a sworn statement by the judge about all the bad stuff the cop had done. Unbeknownst to the judge,. the cop had recorded the encounter and that recording protected him. If not, he would have been proper f****ed. IIrc, the judge ended up committing suicide? It was a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that was the outcome. With a credible (but lying) RP like that, the cop would have been screwn

I know of two guys just in my agency in the last year who were exonerated from bogus complaints due to the availability of video that corroborated their defense of the claims against them.

So, I say it again, I preach it to the high heavens , if you see a cop interacting (traffic stop, subject stop, etc.) with a citizen, RECORD IT!

cheers

eye95 said:

Some (certainly not all or even most) of the dropoff is surely complaints not filed because their bogusness would have easily been established.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY. A point most cop critics would gloss over. In fact, by their thought processes, it would never occur to them. Since cops are ipso facto bad, a complaint about a cop must be true.

That is a very huge positive from video'ing and audio'ing is that these false complaints get ferreted out and/or never happen in the first place. I have seen guys engaged in all sorts of jackassery and as soon as I tell them I'm turning the recorder on, they ... stop

Amazing the way that works.

There have been TONS of incidents where available vide/audio helps discover false complaints. Heck, two that I know of in my agency in the last year - officers exonerated by video. If not available they would have either been sustained or nonsustained, but not exonerated. Too much hesaid./she said what if factors.

Having been in law enforcement for 20+ yrs, I know that a very substantial %age of complaints are either outright fabrications, or gross exaggerations.

That;'s why (the last poll I saw) over 80% of cops surveyed said they WANT to wear body cameras if their dept. would get them

I am certain that camera availability CERTAINLY lowers incidences of misconduct. But , as you say, it also substantially deters false complaints

Without recording, there is little to no disincentive for a person to make a false complaint. The chances they will be held accountable are close to zero.

They are difficult to PROVE false and it's also politically incorrect to prosecute a cop critic. Prosecutors feel it would deter people from coming forward with complaints.

Similar to false rape complaints (they never charged mangum in the duke case, although she was later arrested for murder iirc) and false domestic violence complaints. sad but true., I've seen slam dunk cases of false reporting in a few dv cases. confessions, the whole 9 yards. nolle pros.

PALO said:

EXACTLY. A point most cop critics would gloss over. In fact, by their thought processes, it would never occur to them. Since cops are ipso facto bad, a complaint about a cop must be true.

That is a very huge positive from video'ing and audio'ing is that these false complaints get ferreted out and/or never happen in the first place. I have seen guys engaged in all sorts of jackassery and as soon as I tell them I'm turning the recorder on, they ... stop

Amazing the way that works.

There have been TONS of incidents where available vide/audio helps discover false complaints. Heck, two that I know of in my agency in the last year - officers exonerated by video. If not available they would have either been sustained or nonsustained, but not exonerated. Too much hesaid./she said what if factors.

Having been in law enforcement for 20+ yrs, I know that a very substantial %age of complaints are either outright fabrications, or gross exaggerations.

That;'s why (the last poll I saw) over 80% of cops surveyed said they WANT to wear body cameras if their dept. would get them

I am certain that camera availability CERTAINLY lowers incidences of misconduct. But , as you say, it also substantially deters false complaints

Without recording, there is little to no disincentive for a person to make a false complaint. The chances they will be held accountable are close to zero.

They are difficult to PROVE false and it's also politically incorrect to prosecute a cop critic. Prosecutors feel it would deter people from coming forward with complaints.

Similar to false rape complaints (they never charged mangum in the duke case, although she was later arrested for murder iirc) and false domestic violence complaints. sad but true., I've seen slam dunk cases of false reporting in a few dv cases. confessions, the whole 9 yards. nolle pros.

Click to expand...

Now, if we can just get Officer Pollyanna to recognize there have been tons and tons of video showing cops' abuses.

Proclaiming to be a good cop, without video to substantiate that claim, is a meaningless claim.

The flip side is also true. Implying that all (or most) cops are bad, as so many here (not you) do, is meaningless without video of said all (or most) cops being bad.

Just as we expect to be seen as individuals, not assigned the attributes ascribed to a group, so should we see all cops as individuals, judging their actions only by that which can be proved.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

OC for ME said:

Proclaiming to be a good citizen, without video to substantiate that claim, is a meaningless claim.

Click to expand...

Food for thought.

JustaShooter said:

Food for thought.

Click to expand...

A citizen is presumed to be "good" until a jury of his peers finds him otherwise. A cop being held criminally liable for his misconduct, that he records on his video camera, will be long in coming, if ever. LE does not have it in them to hold their own criminally liable.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...5-000-for-Police-Pointing-Gun-at-Open-Carrier

OC for ME said:

A citizen is presumed to be "good" until a jury of his peers finds him otherwise. A cop being held criminally liable for his misconduct, that he records on his video camera, will be long in coming, if ever. LE does not have it in them to hold their own criminally liable.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...5-000-for-Police-Pointing-Gun-at-Open-Carrier

Click to expand...

+1

And the burden of proof is supposed to be on the state, many of us who ever had to go to court realizes this isn't the reality of the parasitic symbiotic relationship between judges, prosecutors and cops.

I bet video helps with the rampant problem of perjury done by prosecutors and cops otherwise known as "testilying".

eye95 said:

The flip side is also true. Implying that all (or most) cops are bad, as so many here (not you) do, is meaningless without video of said all (or most) cops being bad.

Just as we expect to be seen as individuals, not assigned the attributes ascribed to a group, so should we see all cops as individuals, judging their actions only by that which can be proved.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

They may not all be "bad", but somebody is perpetuating the Blue Wall of Silence.

Regarding your comment about video of bad cops--just have a look around the internet. There are vast numbers of reports and videos. (Ain't the webcrawling programs that scour the internet for local news stories a bi***?) There is no way I'll accept that those cops' proclivities were unknown to their colleagues. There is no way I'll accept that those videos show the involved cops' first abuse. Not all cops are bad, but the industry has serious problems. And, somebody is regularly pointing-up the mortar in the Blue Wall of Silence.

Citizen said:

They may not all be "bad", but somebody is perpetuating the Blue Wall of Silence.

Regarding your comment about video of bad cops--just have a look around the internet. There are vast numbers of reports and videos. (Ain't the webcrawling programs that scour the internet for local news stories a bi***?) There is no way I'll accept that those cops' proclivities were unknown to their colleagues. There is no way I'll accept that those videos show the involved cops' first abuse. Not all cops are bad, but the industry has serious problems. And, somebody is regularly pointing-up the mortar in the Blue Wall of Silence.

Click to expand...

And those videos are not of either all or even most cops.

Just like many cops become jaded by dealing almost exclusively with thugs, making them think of everyone as a thug, many here are relying on bad personal experiences and videos of bad cops (no one posts videos of the huge number of cops doing their job right) to allow their view of cops in general to become warped into thinking that every one of them is a thug.

Judge each individual cop by his actual behavior.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>