• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
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-forced-to-wear-cameras-unable-to-delete-footage/

I realize that the City and County of Denver bans OC, but I'm still presenting the news for discussion.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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.
 

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
"Denver Cops Forced to Wear Cameras - Does this Protect OCers?" No. This is a moot point. OC is not currently legal in Denver.
 

Saxxon

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
222
Location
Northglenn, Colorado
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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"
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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?"
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
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.
 

Saxxon

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
222
Location
Northglenn, Colorado
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

DanNabis

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
82
Location
CO, Lakewood
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.
 
Top