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

marshaul said:

Uh, no. It's quite clearly about "should cops wear cameras?" I don't see anything about "should cops be able to skirt wearing cameras, by effectively disabling them?"

It's fairly implied that a requirement for cops to "wear" cameras is also a requirement to, you know, provide video documentation. Whether that's the case today is irrelevant, as that's precisely what this thread is about changing.

And, what, citizens can't record, themselves? They left their smart phones at home today?

Click to expand...

I understand, but the thread has an undercurrent of 'cops are not trustworthy to report accurately so forcing them to wear cameras assure that everything is on the up and up.'

Well if there is zero consequences if the video is conveniently missing as we see so often even with dash cameras why would body cams be any different?

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Baked on Grease said:

I understand, but the thread has an undercurrent of 'cops are not trustworthy to report accurately so forcing them to wear cameras assure that everything is on the up and up.'

Well if there is zero consequences if the video is conveniently missing as we see so often even with dash cameras why would body cams be any different?

Click to expand...

Because that's the whole point of this discussion. You're inadvertently making the is/ought fallacy with your second sentence.

Why shouldn't we implement consequences? The logic for wearing body cams is not identical to the logic for having dash cams. The latter has always been primarily about obtaining evidence for the police (against drunk drivers etc). The recent public interest in the former (body cams) is much more about accountability for both sides. So, I ask again, why is it a given that there will be no accountability?

I've said several times, in this thread and elsewhere, that we should endeavor to make the end game a situation where police who are engaging to proactive "law enforcement" must have accompanying video evidence to admit any evidence into court. It's not much of a stretch to apply a "fruit of the poisoned tree" approach to such evidence, IMHO. If all evidence is accompanied by video documentation of its acquisition, evidence without such video becomes suspect by default.

Baked on Grease said:

Well if there is zero consequences if the video is conveniently missing as we see so often even with dash cameras why would body cams be any different?

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I don't think that there would be zero consequences for destroying camera evidence .... juries, at least in civil cases, can draw inferences from such information

davidmcbeth said:

I don't think that there would be zero consequences for destroying camera evidence .... juries, at least in civil cases, can draw inferences from such information

Click to expand...

I agree, but unfortunately in the oligarchist police state we have for a gov't.. WE aren't the one that get to dedlcide consequences for police misconduct. I mean... how long has "Conspiracy Against Rights" been on the books and I have never seen it even brought up as a charge a single time in all the hundreds of thousands of corrupt cop stories out there?

We see cops lie on the stand, be proven wrong by video evidence, and just how much punishment do they get? Paid suspension or desk duty for a few months. Perjury? Once in a blue moon... the convenient excuse is they just remembered wrong... and yet their word is still infallable somehow.

And that is my whole point here. We can implement body cameras, and I wholly support it, but it won't be anywhere near as useful as we want it to be unless they actually ARE held accountable when the devices aren't up to snuff.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Baked on Grease said:

I agree, but unfortunately in the oligarchist police state we have for a gov't.. WE aren't the one that get to dedlcide consequences for police misconduct. I mean... how long has "Conspiracy Against Rights" been on the books and I have never seen it even brought up as a charge a single time in all the hundreds of thousands of corrupt cop stories out there?

We see cops lie on the stand, be proven wrong by video evidence, and just how much punishment do they get? Paid suspension or desk duty for a few months. Perjury? Once in a blue moon... the convenient excuse is they just remembered wrong... and yet their word is still infallable somehow.

And that is my whole point here. We can implement body cameras, and I wholly support it, but it won't be anywhere near as useful as we want it to be unless they actually ARE held accountable when the devices aren't up to snuff.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Also see 18 USC 240 and 18 USC 241 .. codified crimes in respect to violating rights ... people have been convicted of this, gov't officials, but not that often.

Baked on Grease said:

To continue that interaction...

Cop: Step out of the vehicle. Put your hands on the hood. (pat down for weapons, then cuffs go on) Now sit on the curb.

15 minutes later, sitting alone in freezing weather-

Cop: Now... I am going to search your car... for my own safety you understand... ok?

If you say anything in the affirmative, you just consented to a search. If you say no, they will probably search anyhow. If they don't find anything to get you on, you get released and sent on your way with a warning about speeding ( does not require a speed amount written down). Now it's your word against his if you put in a complaint or lawsuit unless you had the whole thing recorded... and the court always believes the cop..

And in Indiana the court will still believe the cop even with video evidence that doesn't outright and blatantly disprove the cop.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Lock your doors and leave the key inside. Don't consent.

sudden valley gunner said:

Lock your doors and leave the key inside. Don't consent.

Click to expand...

And run away yelling "its on a timer !!!!"

marshaul said:

SNIP...Why shouldn't we implement consequences? The logic for wearing body cams is not identical to the logic for having dash cams. The latter has always been primarily about obtaining evidence for the police (against drunk drivers etc). The recent public interest in the former (body cams) is much more about accountability for both sides. So, I ask again, why is it a given that there will be no accountability?

I've said several times, in this thread and elsewhere, that we should endeavor to make the end game a situation where police who are engaging to proactive "law enforcement" must have accompanying video evidence to admit any evidence into court. It's not much of a stretch to apply a "fruit of the poisoned tree" approach to such evidence, IMHO. If all evidence is accompanied by video documentation of its acquisition, evidence without such video becomes suspect by default.

Click to expand...

This would be a reaffirmation of the concept of "burden of proof", and would curtail the amount of lying/distortion of the rotten apples, thus helping remove said rotten apples.

Me likey.

This thread is relevant to my interests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wneBHaxvIhU

Yard Sale said:

This thread is relevant to my interests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wneBHaxvIhU

Click to expand...

Cannot watch vid .. says error ... (mine or youtube or another?)

Eroor was on my end .. windows update .. thanks microsoft !

I would venture to guess that each officer, if they had a camera that they were required to wear, could delete anything they did not want to be later found or discovered. Illegal arrests, officers picking up hookers, drinking, drug use etc...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk