Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Denver Cops Forced to Wear Cameras - Does this Protect OCers?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344

    Denver Cops Forced to Wear Cameras - Does this Protect OCers?

    In my opinion forcing cops to wear cameras will help victims of bad open carry detentions/ arrests by documenting what actually took place. Not all OCers video their encounters and often they are forced to stop filming. Your thoughts?


    "Denver Cops Forced to Wear Cameras, Unable to Delete Footage

    Who will watch the watchers? Apparently the watchers..

    Adan Salazar
    Infowars.com
    March 12, 2014

    Police in Denver are testing a solution they hope will give a much-needed boost to their public persona.

    Denver PD is acquiring new guns and armor, and for the next six months will engage in a body camera pilot program in attempts to ingratiate themselves to a police-corruption weary public."

    Full article:

    http://www.infowars.com/denver-cops-...elete-footage/

    I realize that the City and County of Denver bans OC, but I'm still presenting the news for discussion.
    Last edited by Augustin; 03-13-2014 at 02:59 PM. Reason: typos

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    It will help ALL victims.

    When they work, that is. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that they won't be as "reliable" in the field as they were in the product brochure, for some inexplicable reason.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    "Denver Cops Forced to Wear Cameras - Does this Protect OCers?" No. This is a moot point. OC is not currently legal in Denver.
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northglenn, Colorado
    Posts
    243
    Actually, OC is legal in Denver, only they will unjustly arrest someone and put them on trial against state pre-emption that clearly states that in the area of firearms statewide uniformity is paramount.

    That would then (hopefully) be pushed to the Supreme Court again for a tie breaker.

    However, it shouldn't even need to go that far - the real bulwark against unconstitutional law is the jury, no jury should be convicting someone under an unconstitutional law (ie like the Fugitive Slave Law which the Supreme Court upheld, despite many jurors refusing to convict. We wound up fighting a war 6 years later and over half a million died to undo that decision).

    The Courts are not supposed to be the arbiters of what is consitional or not - WE ARE. That is why trial by jury was put in the Bill of Rights. Juries spawned the idea of rights in the first place, ie those in the 1st Amendment were all the result of juries refusing to convict.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    "Denver Cops Forced to Wear Cameras - Does this Protect OCers?" No. This is a moot point. OC is not currently legal in Denver.
    Well protect every body nothing like shining the light of day
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Saxxon View Post
    Actually, OC is legal in Denver, only they will unjustly arrest someone and put them on trial against state pre-emption that clearly states that in the area of firearms statewide uniformity is paramount.

    That would then (hopefully) be pushed to the Supreme Court again for a tie breaker.

    However, it shouldn't even need to go that far - the real bulwark against unconstitutional law is the jury, no jury should be convicting someone under an unconstitutional law (ie like the Fugitive Slave Law which the Supreme Court upheld, despite many jurors refusing to convict. We wound up fighting a war 6 years later and over half a million died to undo that decision).

    The Courts are not supposed to be the arbiters of what is consitional or not - WE ARE. That is why trial by jury was put in the Bill of Rights. Juries spawned the idea of rights in the first place, ie those in the 1st Amendment were all the result of juries refusing to convict.
    I have not seen anyone but me who will say "I will not convict any criminal defendant for any crime until the gun laws are repealed"

  7. #7
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I have not seen anyone but me who will say "I will not convict any criminal defendant for any crime until the gun laws are repealed"
    Thank god. ..

    While we agree on some things, we are far apart on this one.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    The question for me is "Where can one go to buy a camera of a quality and with data protection such as those apparently available only to law enforcement?"

  9. #9
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    The question for me is "Where can one go to buy a camera of a quality and with data protection such as those apparently available only to law enforcement?"
    In practice, or in theory? I'd wager MAC702 is correct on what reliability we should expect from the cameras.

    Who will guard the guards? I just can't wrap my head around the fact that the guards are expected to guard themselves. It changes little-to-nothing.

    Maybe I'll have a different opinion when a FOIA request for one of the videos is fulfilled willingly, and it turns out the video shows blatant police brutality, which in turn removes one bad apple from the LEO barrel.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northglenn, Colorado
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I have not seen anyone but me who will say "I will not convict any criminal defendant for any crime until the gun laws are repealed"
    Well thats taking things too far which marginalizes your point.

    I would not convict someone accused of violating an UNJUST law, or if the law was UNJUSTLY applied.

    A blanket statement that you won't convict any criminal until given laws are repealed (which are focused on a narrow scope of "crimes") is in effect holding society hostage to anarchy.

    IE, just because there is the magazine ban doesn't mean I wouldnt vote guilty on a murder trial where the evidence showed the person clearly intended to murder the victim (killing not in self defense).

    ------------------------

    As to camera/recorders there are a host of various devices avialable online from Amazon to Opticsplanet etc. There are several varieties of sports recorders some mounted in eyeglasses that people use to record themselves skiing etc. Fairly sure there are several that are reliable, though I did try a sunglasses version that while it worked fine for the recording, the glasses frames were too brittle and they broke within a few weeks.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    All is well now...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 04-06-2014 at 08:48 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    More money to effect little, if any, change.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    More money to effect little, if any, change.
    Not true. Other cities requiring the same have had dramatic (>70%) reductions in the amount of complaints against officers, while simultaneously enjoying modest (>30%) increases in successful complaint resolution. Departments don't adopt these measures to protect citizens. Just the officers. The unintended side-effect is citizens are protected, as well.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    CO, Lakewood
    Posts
    83
    I think it would only possibly help in police brutality situations or if it reminds LEOs that they are( or should be) being held accountable for their actions and they exercise restraint.

    Police are prohibited from helping a defendant in anyway, so even if police video exculpates someone, it is inadmissible in court and will not help anyone.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •