Way too much bad shit going on.

The BART cop who shot a handcuffed man lying on the ground in the back was sentenced to two years in jail, his crime was videoed from several different angle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant

Former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle served only one year of a two-year manslaughter sentence and was then placed on a unsupervised non-revocable parole.

Under the unsupervised non-revocable parole, no conditions were placed on him.

He wasn't even required to meet with a parole agent. And his whereabouts were not tracked.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/mehserle-placed-on-unsupervised-parole/nD7zd/

He was trying to get his job back with BART too. Pig.

50% reduction in use of force. What happened in the Bay Area was a travesty, but overall police cameras are a win-win for both cops and citizens.

I am so sick of these murdering thugs.

it would protect them against false allegations of wrongdoing, which does happen frequently, just as it would protect the general citizenry against false allegations/corruption/brutality from the police, which, also, does happen frequently.

Further, it should be made absolutely and unequivocally clear that photographing and recording police is not only legal, but something which should be encouraged as a social norm.

Police who lie about their actions in any official proceeding, as indicated by video record, should be tried for perjury and given the maximum sentence on conviction, separately from the trial on whatever criminal charge the officer lied to cover up or avoid. Any officer who lies to assist a fellow officer in trying to evade prosecution should be charged as accessory after the fact, and charged further with obstruction of justice.

A few years of such a regimen would probably drive home to even the most insular of the tribe that they are required to obey the law while enforcing it, and must not commit crimes of violence under color of enforcing the law

it might end up helping the PD in lawsuits.

both ways, too.

Protect innocent citizens from police abuse

and protects the police from people who wrongly claim abuse.


I saw a case recently where a young man was stopped by a cop for speeding or whatever. The kid reported the cop for "abuse". The case was thrown out, but the report stays on the cop's record.

So the cop brought the kid to small claims court...played the tape of the conversation...and won a settlement.

So yeah...I fully support cameras with microphones for the safety and protection of all involved.

In addition the FBI and DEA should be required to film all interviews and debriefings and interrogations.

they are just as bad, possibly even worse.

especially the Fugitive Task Force.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Tool to aid in prosecution of offenders aswell.

all cops ought to be required to carry insurance that would pay out to their victims. As it stands now, it's the taxpayers who foot the bill when someone wins a lawsuit against the police force, which amounts to asking victims to pay their own settlements. Cops need to feel the financial pinch of their actions.

Even cops are entitled to privacy when not on duty. But there could be strict rules on when they are on duty and when they are not.

A Bluetooth sign-in and sign-off signal.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

I've had many a client who claimed 'police brutality'---I would have liked to see videotape.

Seriously does anyone doubt that left wing protests/groups draw out police more then right wingers?

I know one avatar doesn't prove anything, but they wonder why we're a bit angry with them.

Are you fucking kidding me?! The laughter, and then the "cockroaches" remark. You know who else compared people to cockroaches? Boward County has had those horrendous reality shows featuring their asshole sheriff departments before.

And someone answer me this: why don't you see these police/military tactics at TeaTurd rallies?!

[i]Good listeners, there have been reports that some of you have not joined your brothers in the fight to squish the cockroaches that plague or country.

This is RTLM of Hutu Power Radio. Be vigilant friends, ‘watch your neighbors.’”

Quoted line from “Hotel Rwanda(2004)”-Zeke Reed

(which could be a whole other post about Right wing radio, Fox news and the effects of Eliminationist Rhetoric.)

Also it would be great if car insurance companies gave a cost reduction for motorists who have dash cams as they do in Russia. It would save them and consumers money.

for it, but I have a dashcam in one of my vehicles. It records video and audio, and I like the whole idea, even without the insurance discount.

Maybe they would offer a discount?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

And, as a selling point to law and order types, they would also strengthen the prosecution of real criminals.

I'm all in on it. The "Police State" mentality has got to go in this society. Damn... I heard a couple horrible police brutality cases on DemocracyNow this week. Amy devoted the whole hour to them. So, can the ACLU sue for this? The fact that police brutality exists is a forgone proven fact and conclusion. Isn't there a law somewhere now that citizens can't film police? If so, that needs to be repealed, post immediately!

Oh yeah, K&R

cops walking around with mobile cameras recording everything in their path. All those who scream about privacy need to think about the ramifications.

...which is almost certain to be the case for a small, battery-operated camera with limited processing and storage capability, then the recorded video would have limited use for either facial-recognition or license-plate reading. The resolution would be too low.

If it's a fish-eye lens, it's even less useful for that sort of thing.

It would prevent the NSA or whoever from simply uploading the video and using the DMV database to retroactively chart people's lives and habits.

Laws cut both ways, not necessarily a bad thing.

A cop probably gets in the kind of situation you are talking about very rarely. But on a daily basis they probably overlook many, many small crimes and infractions. A camera will force them toward following the letter of the law at all times.

In my opinion, cops should have a POV camera on them at all times, recording audio and video, except when using the bathroom. I'm not sure how to accomplish the "not when using the bathroom part", but let's put that aside for now.


The entire shift's recording should be copied to archive unit that does not allow deletion or alteration. An editor could then make "snippets" of the original to provide to prosecuting and defense attorneys for specific individuals. If a cop gets a domestic violence call, the segment from him arriving on scene to him getting back into his car to resume duties after dropping the arrested at the station can be copied and filed with the appropriate paperwork for that specific case. In fact, all of the appropriate video from all responding officers could be compiled for the attorneys.

If, later, somebody accuses the cop of doing something inappropriate, the original archive can be reviewed and more segments snipped and copied as needed. For example, if a woman claims that a cop slapped her ass while in line at Burger King, the officer's superiors could simply review the original to see if it happened.

In this case, the officer's superiors would not review his daily actions and have some kind of tally of "crimes let go" versus "crimes acted upon".

The camera should be somewhat fish-eyed, as cops generally deal with people at close range, so broadening the field of view would be very useful.

Thinking about bathroom breaks, I guess the only thing that could be done would be a little button on the camera that the cop presses for a break. When he presses it, the camera resolution would decrease by, say, 50% for, say, 90 seconds.

Enough of a degrading so that we don't get pictures of sexual organs, but also enough so that the cops can't beat a suspect off-camera using the "bathroom break" button. And the sound would still be recorded.

Standard-definition would be enough. I don't think the technology to record up to 15 hours of hi-def video at 30 frames per second exists that can fit into a lightweight camera on a headband. It's a lot of processing for the compression and a lot of memory!

But I know that a good-quality standard-def .avi video runs at about 900 megabytes per hour; a 16-gig microSD card is about $15 and would easily hold an officer's shift, even if it was a 12-hour overtime one. And if the processing power to compress the video wasn't available due to power constraints or whatever, you could lower the frame rate. 10 frames per second is still enough in terms of documentation.

At the beginning of the shift, program the camera with the date and time stamp and the officer's badge number. Hell, we could even include a GPS chip so the video is geo-tagged.

And I can't muster any argument why this wouldn't be a good idea.

Really. A camera that films whatever the police look at all times? With an infinite amount of memory I guess.

Whether or not you care about the privacy of the cops, what about the privacy of every single person the cops are looking at.

Talk about Big Brother.

doesn't exist anymore, IMO.

Not when people are filmed walking in and out of stores, probably while they're browsing the aisles as well. Banks have cameras.

Not to mention things like secret "Nanny cams" in peoples' homes.

If you go to a sporting event, you could see yourself doing whatever up on the Jumbo-tron.

And cellphones. You can be filmed anywhere, doing just about anything. And that footage can be uploaded to Youtube and seen by millions of people. Worldwide.

There's even an app called "iSpy" whereby ordinary people can sit and watch other ordinary people in various locations around the world. I've watched people in bars and restaurants...on the beach. One night a group of people who knew the camera was there stood beneath it and waved to all the people who might be watching. I almost waved back, but...well, they wouldn't have seen me.

So with all the unprivate places already out there, I don't see a problem with the cops being able to record their interactions with people who, most of them, made a conscious choice to do something that caused them to be pulled over or stopped in the first place.

The OP proposed cops wearing cameras that can't be turned off.

Leaving aside how that would work...if what the camera sees isn't being recorded, what's the point? And how do you have enough memory.

Do you really want the police to have banks of videos of every single thing every law enforcement officer looks at?

I remember when folks were concerned that during anti-war protests the police were filming people doing nothing more than exercising their rights of free speech. I guess I'm just a old fart.

Some football coaches have started experimenting with using Google glasses to help the coach see what the QB is seeing. Why not do the same with police?

I know, I bring it up too often but I'm suffering withdrawal until season three starts in April.

Anyways, the cops of the year 2077 have tech implants that record everything they see and hear. The data is uploaded on a daily basis to a central server.

Agent Cameron is a little upset when she learns that the data is not erased but stored. It doesn't keep her from being a cop, though.

Technology is always a two-edged sword.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

the question though is; what politician would be willing to take on this monster?

we deserve total information awareness of their activities,
not the other way around.

has been an attorney 50 years. he says he is YET to see a cruiser video that puts a cop in a bad light. every time one of his clients claim police brutality or the like, the cruiser camera happens to be "broke" or not turned on.

and if it happens to particular cars...or officers...on a regular basis, then perhaps any lawsuits or court cases should be swayed more in the favor of the person making the claim of abuse.

If that happened often enough, then maybe it would be incentive for the department in question to do better maintenance on their cameras. Or "remember" to turn them on.

It would then be a truly open government.

have nothing to hide.

Cops, security, troops, CCP, everybody that gets a gun gets a camera.

I imagine it would "magically break" at inconvenient times, but still.

Of course, most other government workers don't kill people in the course of their normal duties.