Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: Hmm should cops wear cameras? Might stop them from lying in prosecutions

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Hmm should cops wear cameras? Might stop them from lying in prosecutions

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...icago-police/2

    As part of his rebuttal case after the officers completed their testimony, Goldman surprised prosecutors and the officers by producing the video taken from the Glenview sergeant's squad car at the scene that day. Goldman had subpoenaed the video from the Glenview Police Department.



    This is why the deference of cop's testimony that they are impartial is simply not true ~ making arrests that don't lead to convictions play a part in their career advancement ~ they have more reason to lie than anyone in a courtroom.

    Glad this judge took appropriate remedies for the defendant.

    I laughed at the re-visit of another case where the judge read the cop his Miranda rights while he was on the stand ...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 04-16-2014 at 02:29 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Yes police should wear cameras but I have a lot of experience with cops videos disappearing or never being produced.

    That's why all citizens should record instead. Our videos are better quality anyway.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    The production of police videos or lack thereof will only be relevant in civil litigation.

    In criminal litigation the police/defendants are not compelled to produce evidence that will incriminate themselves.. They can plead the 5th as well as anyone and or lose evidence.. However in civil matters their losing of such evidence may in fact be enough for a plaintiff to win a suit.

    In criminal issues, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. In civil issues the burden of proof is more in the defendants lap.

    My .02

    Regards

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    I don't expect police-recorded videos to be used against police.

    What I would require is that the acquisition of any and all evidence by "law enforcement" be recorded in (at least) triplicate, and evidence obtained without such documentation be considered "fruit of the poisoned tree" and admissible.

    In a sane world I might allow limited exemptions for exigency, but as far as I am concerned police have abused that concept to the point of deserving its outright loss for a decade or two.
    Last edited by marshaul; 04-16-2014 at 08:33 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,163
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    The production of police videos or lack thereof will only be relevant in civil litigation. In criminal litigation the police/defendants are not compelled to produce evidence that will incriminate themselves.. They can plead the 5th as well as anyone and or lose evidence.. However in civil matters their losing of such evidence may in fact be enough for a plaintiff to win a suit. In criminal issues, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. In civil issues the burden of proof is more in the defendants lap. My .02 Regards CCJ
    Really? See Brady v. Maryland, Holding, Withholding of evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. " (Brady v. State of Maryland 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194; 10 L. Ed. 2d 215; 1963 U. S. LEXIS 1615)
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,202
    With smaller and smaller cameras with more and more storage or direct transmission of data.

    I believe that every officer well be wearing a personal camera with in 10 years.

    Good bad or other wise that remains to be seen.
    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

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Really? See Brady v. Maryland, Holding, Withholding of evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. " (Brady v. State of Maryland 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194; 10 L. Ed. 2d 215; 1963 U. S. LEXIS 1615)
    +1
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Good bad or other wise that remains to be seen.
    I have yet to envision a scenario where every cop being required to film every interaction of consequence is a "bad" thing.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Orange countyl, California is having a problem with their antennas that help record police interactions are mysteriously being broken.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Yes police should wear cameras but I have a lot of experience with cops videos disappearing or never being produced.

    That's why all citizens should record instead. Our videos are better quality anyway.
    Or like in LA where they found more than half the in car recording devices had been tampered with to prevent the capture of audio/video.

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  11. #11
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I have yet to envision a scenario where every cop being required to film every interaction of consequence is a "bad" thing.
    There were a few cops on policeone that said they'd be petty and vindictive if they are forced to wear a camera.

    Going 0.1 MPH over the speed limit? Pulled over. Move over within your lane to avoid a pothole? Pulled over for 'swerving'...

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Baked on Grease View Post
    There were a few cops on policeone that said they'd be petty and vindictive if they are forced to wear a camera.

    Going 0.1 MPH over the speed limit? Pulled over. Move over within your lane to avoid a pothole? Pulled over for 'swerving'...
    I know a few good lawyers who could have lots of fun with ample video evidence of an intentional pattern of "petty and vindictive" behavior. FOIA and all that.

    Plus, officers might even be held personally liable for that sort of pattern.

    In short, empty threats from the peanut gallery who know damn well their license to abuse would be curtailed by this reform.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I know a few good lawyers who could have lots of fun with ample video evidence of an intentional pattern of "petty and vindictive" behavior. FOIA and all that.

    Plus, officers might even be held personally liable for that sort of pattern.

    In short, empty threats from the peanut gallery who know damn well their license to abuse would be curtailed by this reform.
    Yep otherwise they wouldn't whine about it. They will often publicly state how recordings will exonerate them most of the time but then they privately do this.......https://www.schneier.com/blog/archiv..._disablin.html
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    The production of police videos or lack thereof will only be relevant in civil litigation.

    In criminal litigation the police/defendants are not compelled to produce evidence that will incriminate themselves.. They can plead the 5th as well as anyone and or lose evidence.. However in civil matters their losing of such evidence may in fact be enough for a plaintiff to win a suit.

    In criminal issues, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. In civil issues the burden of proof is more in the defendants lap.

    My .02

    Regards

    CCJ
    Incorrect. Police departments don't have rights, individual officers do. The video is the property of the dept, not the individual officers. In fact, the police are required to turn all excalpatory evidence over to the prosecutor.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    The production of police videos or lack thereof will only be relevant in civil litigation.

    In criminal litigation the police/defendants are not compelled to produce evidence that will incriminate themselves.. They can plead the 5th as well as anyone and or lose evidence.. However in civil matters their losing of such evidence may in fact be enough for a plaintiff to win a suit.

    In criminal issues, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. In civil issues the burden of proof is more in the defendants lap.

    My .02

    Regards

    CCJ
    I think that you are looking at this from hindsight. At the time the record (vid) was requested the cops did not violate a law YET.

    So the video was produced. Then they violated the law by lying on the stand.

    They cannot say "well, our guys are going to lie on the stand so this video cannot be compelled to be produced". How far would that argument get them? Back to the Stone Age.

    Now if a vid showed a cop shooting a guy to death and they charged another regular Joe with the murder then I think that even this video would have to be disclosed to Joe because its not the COP'S video, its the city's. Now if the cop made a video on his own, then this property would also belong to the city, not the cop and would be required to be disclosed. One cannot put the city on a criminal trial for murder. Now if the cop's wife made a video of the murder then this may be withheld due to spousal privilege (in some cases and states).

    So these videos would likely all be required to be provided in a criminal case.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Baked on Grease View Post
    There were a few cops on policeone that said they'd be petty and vindictive if they are forced to wear a camera.

    Going 0.1 MPH over the speed limit? Pulled over. Move over within your lane to avoid a pothole? Pulled over for 'swerving'...

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
    I think that many more would simply stop making stupid traffic stops to begin with ... I think that 0.1 MPH would be silly (due to accuracy of equipment) but looking at 2-5 MPH violations? Sure, they could do that and they would just be enforcing the law. And people would be outraged and force a change in the law (maybe)...maybe by making a 5 MPH over charge to carry no court fees and a 2 dollar fine with no points on license and insurance companies cannot take not if such an infraction. Its happened in states, I recall in Montana after 55 MPH was enacted, the state made something like 20 MPH on an interstate to be like a 5 dollar fine.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    One of the biggest "tools" police use to make arrests is forced consent. This is where the police have no probable cause for a search but they lie, threaten and bully subjects into consenting to a search.

    Many times subjects flat out refuse but if there is no video or audio then jurors and judges will always take the word of the police and convict.

    This is why police absolutely hate video and audio cameras.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    One of the biggest "tools" police use to make arrests is forced consent. This is where the police have no probable cause for a search but they lie, threaten and bully subjects into consenting to a search.

    Many times subjects flat out refuse but if there is no video or audio then jurors and judges will always take the word of the police and convict.

    This is why police absolutely hate video and audio cameras.
    That's correct...and is why I recommend folks NOT open their doors to police at them. Make them break it down, leaving evidence of a forced entry.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Many times subjects flat out refuse but if there is no video or audio then jurors and judges will always take the word of the police and convict.

    This is why police absolutely hate video and audio cameras.
    Happened to me. I still have the recording somewhere.

    If they had found anything illegal, or detained me much longer than they did, the Petaluma police would have had a first hand taste of that. As it was, I walked away with standing to do little more than file a complaint.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Happened to me. I still have the recording somewhere.

    If they had found anything illegal, or detained me much longer than they did, the Petaluma police would have had a first hand taste of that. As it was, I walked away with standing to do little more than file a complaint.

    Too many people just feel lucky to have been able to walk away and don't follow through with the complaint.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Too many people just feel lucky to have been able to walk away and don't follow through with the complaint.
    That was me. In my defense, I wasn't used to being made a victim, and I didn't know better. I suppose it was lucky I had a recorder at all.

    Next time I'd file the complaint, at the very least. I'd probably contact an attorney, just for kicks.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    That was me. In my defense, I wasn't used to being made a victim, and I didn't know better. I suppose it was lucky I had a recorder at all.

    Next time I'd file the complaint, at the very least. I'd probably contact an attorney, just for kicks.
    +1

    Yep I used to not file a complaint either now I make it a point too.

    It's also fun to ask for a foi later and see how much stuff is missing and how the officer obvioulsy doesn't write a "report" until its requested. (or the real report is hidden)
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    +1

    Yep I used to not file a complaint either now I make it a point too.

    It's also fun to ask for a foi later and see how much stuff is missing and how the officer obvioulsy doesn't write a "report" until its requested. (or the real report is hidden)
    The misconduct of public employees is a matter of public concern and records relating to this are not exempt under the FOIA Act in my state ... here's a recent decision in my state:
    http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/Docum...mentNo=7442055
    issued 4-7-14

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The misconduct of public employees is a matter of public concern and records relating to this are not exempt under the FOIA Act in my state ... here's a recent decision in my state:
    http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/Docum...mentNo=7442055
    issued 4-7-14

    Not in mine too, but had the local exprosecutor (who told me he doesn't see himself ever prosecuting a cop) who is now the records keeper, pretty much admit they shred the complaint forms.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I think that many more would simply stop making stupid traffic stops to begin with ... I think that 0.1 MPH would be silly (due to accuracy of equipment) but looking at 2-5 MPH violations? Sure, they could do that and they would just be enforcing the law. And people would be outraged and force a change in the law (maybe)...maybe by making a 5 MPH over charge to carry no court fees and a 2 dollar fine with no points on license and insurance companies cannot take not if such an infraction. Its happened in states, I recall in Montana after 55 MPH was enacted, the state made something like 20 MPH on an interstate to be like a 5 dollar fine.
    More than that. A radar which was once used to measure the speed of my vehicle had a 2mph margin of error. Assuming that applies to a single radar, and the officer was using so-called "rolling radar" which actually uses 2 separate radars, your margin of error just doubled. That 4mph margin of error assumes optimal calibration, recent calibration, optimal weather conditions, lack of interference, optimal angle, proper maintenance, lack of need for repair, etc. etc. etc.

    If you get pulled over for 5mph over, you're being trolled. The likelihood of the officers equipment being accurate enough to confidently detect a 5mph speeding infraction is slim to none.

    Yes, I think that more police wearing cameras would be a good thing. I also think that more citizens wearing cameras would likewise be a good thing.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 04-16-2014 at 07:29 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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