One last topic before I go to bed: Reports on Police killing blacks

[Dr_Liszt]

Since this is a popular topic now a days.

Do you think that the fact that these kinds of killings are getting media attention, will result in more awareness and therefore a change in the system?

Or do you think this is just used to cause racial division?

GO!

[Derived Absurdity]

No and no.

[aels]

I don't think the system will change as a result of this. I had to do a uni essay on whether the police service is institutionally racist a few years ago and from what I can remember, not very much changed as a result of the Scarman report in the 80s, and not very much more changed as a result of the Macpherson report in the 90s. I don't imagine America is any different in that respect - even publicly being caught out engaging in racist practices doesn't facilitate change.

[Boomer]

I don't think cops will become less racist, but I feel each case like this brings us closer to cops being required to wear personal cameras, which is a step in the right direction, IMO.

[Derived Absurdity]

I don't think cops will become less racist, but I feel each case like this brings us closer to cops being required to wear personal cameras, which is a step in the right direction, IMO.

No, it's not.

[Boomer]

I don't think cops will become less racist, but I feel each case like this brings us closer to cops being required to wear personal cameras, which is a step in the right direction, IMO.

No, it's not.

Go on.

[Derived Absurdity]

Personal body cameras will be trained on citizens, not police. They will be under police control and the police will simply use them to their advantage. It will increase the already massive power disparity between police and civilians and make the problem worse.

[Boomer]

Eh, that's possible but I find it highly unlikely. Granted studies on the subject are limited, but what information is out there suggests cameras have resulted in a decrease of incidents where police use force.

Further, no matter what the angle of the video is, surely having some video evidence is preferable to whichever narrative the police feel like spinning; police will bend over backwards to protect their own and the media sure as hell won't investigate further than needed when the police are painting their own versions of events, especially when the incident involves a black guy.

[Dr_Liszt]

Not if it's on people, no.
What you want is less state control no more.

[Boomer]

How would police wearing cameras give the state more control?

[Derived Absurdity]

Eh, that's possible but I find it highly unlikely. Granted studies on the subject are limited, but what information is out there suggests cameras have resulted in a decrease of incidents where police use force.

Further, no matter what the angle of the video is, surely having some video evidence is preferable to whichever narrative the police feel like spinning; police will bend over backwards to protect their own and the media sure as hell won't investigate further than needed when the police are painting their own versions of events, especially when the incident involves a black guy.

That information, I have found, has been highly questionable. And a lot of studies aimed at illustrating the efficacy of body cams have been tentative in any case.

The police will use the video evidence to advance their own narrative. That is not speculative; it's a fact. They have used video evidence to advance their own narrative in court before. Studies have shown that jurors can be misled by variables such as a film's angle or focus. That can and will easily be titled in the cops' favor. I don't know if you're aware of the truly sickening and disturbing case of Cecily McMillan, an OWS activist who was sexually assaulted by an officer, but in the courtroom the police were able to turn grainy useless video footage into evidence that they were "assaulted". The NYPD's testimony was privileged over even physical evidence. That's how it usually is in the courtroom - the cops' word is taken to be more definitive than almost anything else.

So, think about it. If you have two separate pieces of video footage of an incident - one from an officer's personal, officially sanctioned body cameras, and the other from a citizen's perspective - which do you think the courtroom is going to give more weight to? The juror (and the media, of course) is going to give quite a lot of weight to the "official" perspective and then - maybe, perhaps, if they're feeling generous - allow the video to be shown from the citizen's perspective. This will make the problem far, far worse.

And then there's the problem that examples of police brutality have been caught on video without any punishment, that many cameras have conveniently "malfunctioned" as critical moments, that police have often "forgot" to turn them on at critical moments, the fact that many police departments haven't allowed critical footage to be submitted to the public record for review, the fact that the can be used to embarrass and intimidate the citizens they're interacting with, etc. makes body cameras a major step in the wrong direction.

[Boomer]

"That information, I have found, has been highly questionable. And a lot of studies aimed at illustrating the efficacy of body cams have been tentative in any case."

While studies may be somewhat inconclusive they can't be completely ignored; to my knowledge there are no studies showing any correlation between police wearing personal cameras and an increase in use of force. Studies have shown quite the opposite, in fact.

"The police will use the video evidence to advance their own narrative. That is not speculative; it's a fact. They have used video evidence to advance their own narrative in court before. Studies have shown that jurors can be misled by variables such as a film's angle or focus. That can and will easily be titled in the cops' favor."

Of course it's a fact police will use video evidence to support their own narrative. It's the prerogative of both sides of a legal case to either use evidence or discredit it in anyway to advance their own case; in fact both sides often use the same piece of evidence to tell very different stories. Implementation of personal cameras won't be meant to solely incriminate police, but also be used to justify the use of lethal force.

"I don't know if you're aware of the truly sickening and disturbing case of Cecily McMillan, an OWS activist who was sexually assaulted by an officer, but in the courtroom the police were able to turn grainy useless video footage into evidence that they were "assaulted". The NYPD's testimony was privileged over even physical evidence. That's how it usually is in the courtroom - the cops' word is taken to be more definitive than almost anything else."

Imagine if every police officer breaking up that OWS protest was wearing a personal camera. You could potentially have up to a dozen, if not more, HD-quality camera angles of what actually happened.

"So, think about it. If you have two separate pieces of video footage of an incident - one from an officer's personal, officially sanctioned body cameras, and the other from a citizen's perspective - which do you think the courtroom is going to give more weight to? The juror (and the media, of course) is going to give quite a lot of weight to the "official" perspective and then - maybe, perhaps, if they're feeling generous - allow the video to be shown from the citizen's perspective. This will make the problem far, far worse."

I'm not sure if this argument is backed by many real-world examples, but even if for some reason video evidence is only accepted from a police source and evidence from a civilian source is deemed impermissible, video can only be one-sided up to a degree; without the video it would simply be an officer's word against a civilian's, so the civilian would be in a similar if not worse situation. The fact of the matter is instances of police brutality are often recorded by no sources, let alone two.

"And then there's the problem that examples of police brutality have been caught on video without any punishment..."

Which raises the question of whether these instances would have gone to trial at all if not for the video.

"...that many cameras have conveniently "malfunctioned" as critical moments, that police have often "forgot" to turn them on at critical moments, the fact that many police departments haven't allowed critical footage to be submitted to the public record for review..."

All of these instances imply a lack of video as being a bad thing.

"...the fact that the can be used to embarrass and intimidate the citizens they're interacting with, etc. ..."

It's possible, though historically cops have had little need for videos in order to use their station to intimidate citizens.

"... makes body cameras a major step in the wrong direction."

I guess the major point causing me to disagree with this idea is that having video evidence, no matter what angle or perspective it is recorded from, is almost always better than having no video evidence. Take the recent shooting of Walter Scott: the cop who murdered him created a blatantly false narrative, corroborated by his (lying) partner, which was already being run with by the media as the official story before video surface showing otherwise. Without said video there's little doubt in my mind the killing would have been deemed justified, and the murderer would be walking away scot-free.

Tl;dr: You're going to be hard-pressed trying to convince me that some video evidence </= no video evidence.

[Dr_Liszt]

Further, no matter what the angle of the video is, surely having some video evidence is preferable to whichever narrative the police feel like spinning

Not if it's on people, no.
What you want is less state control no more.

How would police wearing cameras give the state more control?

Not if it's on people, no.
What you want is less state control no more.

Hope that cleared it for you.

[Derived Absurdity]

While studies may be somewhat inconclusive they can't be completely ignored; to my knowledge there are no studies showing any correlation between police wearing personal cameras and an increase in use of force. Studies have shown quite the opposite, in fact.

One major study, in Rialto. And there's no reason to think the body cameras by themselves had anything at all to with it; other causative factors may have been at play. And there is at least one other study, in Denver, where the police monitor claimed that police used force more often during the trial period where they had personal cameras on.

Of course it's a fact police will use video evidence to support their own narrative. It's the prerogative of both sides of a legal case to either use evidence or discredit it in anyway to advance their own case; in fact both sides often use the same piece of evidence to tell very different stories. Implementation of personal cameras won't be meant to solely incriminate police, but also be used to justify the use of lethal force.

Yes, this is all my point. Thank you. This is also something you were implying was not the case before, with the quote "surely having some video evidence is preferable to whichever narrative the police feel like spinning", as if "video evidence" and "whichever narrative the police feel like spinning" are mutually antagonistic and not simply able to reinforce the other.

Imagine if every police officer breaking up that OWS protest was wearing a personal camera. You could potentially have up to a dozen, if not more, HD-quality camera angles of what actually happened.

Hahahahaha. Then those personal cameras would be configured to keep an eye on the protesters, not the police, from the perspectives of the police. They will be, as I said, trained to hold the citizens "accountable", not the cops. That is WHY the police bring cameras to political rallies in the first place, so that they can aid the future prosecution of whoever they arrest. If you have a citizen filming the police, that is very different from the police filming the citizen (and then keeping that footage away from the public and maybe manipulating it before presenting it to the courtroom), which is a dynamic you don't seem to be acknowledging. Police body cameras are MILES away from citizens filming them.

I'm not sure if this argument is backed by many real-world examples, but even if for some reason video evidence is only accepted from a police source and evidence from a civilian source is deemed impermissible, video can only be one-sided up to a degree; without the video it would simply be an officer's word against a civilian's, so the civilian would be in a similar if not worse situation. The fact of the matter is instances of police brutality are often recorded by no sources, let alone two.

No, the video can in many ways make it worse. It can be wrenched out of context to make what it presents look far worse than it was, for example, which would make things very easy for a prosecutor. The cop can easily manipulate the jury to feel what he wants to feel as they look at it. The cops' word is already pedestalized in the courtroom, and supposedly incontrovertible video evidence will only make it worse.

Which raises the question of whether these instances would have gone to trial at all if not for the video.

Yes, some of them might not have. But that's not really relevant if the system still makes it very easy for a cop to twist the evidence in court and walk free. There are many institutional barriers preventing justice from police brutality, and if these barriers aren't torn down body cams are going to provide a very thin and ephemeral protection at best, and at worst false hope and imaginary safety.

I guess the major point causing me to disagree with this idea is that having video evidence, no matter what angle or perspective it is recorded from, is almost always better than having no video evidence. Take the recent shooting of Walter Scott: the cop who murdered him created a blatantly false narrative, corroborated by his (lying) partner, which was already being run with by the media as the official story before video surface showing otherwise. Without said video there's little doubt in my mind the killing would have been deemed justified, and the murderer would be walking away scot-free.

And again, this is the major point. I am not against recording police. I am against police having their own body cameras at their disposal.

Tl;dr: You're going to be hard-pressed trying to convince me that some video evidence </= no video evidence.

Good thing I'm not trying to convince you of that.

[phe_de]

I wouldn't mind if there were cameras filming all public places 24/7, and that every citizen could watch the content of these cameras in real time.

Then we wouldn't need to worry about whether the cameras from the cops were manipulated, or rely on videos shot by third parties.

[aels]

There is, as far as I can dimly recall from a surveillance lecture at uni a few years ago, no strong reason to believe that CCTV has that much of an effect on crime/anti-social behaviour in public areas (it's most effective, at least in the UK, at cutting vehicle crime in car parks and has shown no real effect on stopping violent crime in city centres). Research has been really mixed on whether CCTV is effective and when CCTV does work, it tends to only work in specific contexts. There's also a risk that it just displaces crime to other areas.

EDIT: Wait, you weren't talking about crime prevention but police accountability. I'll leave my comment up though because it's still interesting, goddammit.

[Derived Absurdity]

He's misguided anyway. There's been skyrocketing video surveillance of cops since the Rodney King beating and there hasn't been any corresponding decrease in police violence in America (despite lowering crime rates) or rise in indictments. More surveillance is simply a band-aid to gloss over the deeper problem.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

One major study, in Rialto. And there's no reason to think the body cameras by themselves had anything at all to with it; other causative factors may have been at play. And there is at least one other study, in Denver, where the police monitor claimed that police used force more often during the trial period where they had personal cameras on.

Can you clarify what you are claiming with the Rialto study? It seems to me that you are using it as an example to Boomer on how cameras can increase force.

The Rialto study showed that officers without cameras were twice as likely to resort to force in the field as those with cameras.

There is data out there that shows there are definitely benefits to vest camera's with reduced physical altercations and a reduction in civil complaints because the officers are more aware of how they talk to people so Boomer is right there but DA is also right that it won't change a racist into a not racist and the police have an almost invincible benefactor on their side which will make it so hard to prosecute misconduct even with video.

Either way, there is no downside to the camera's according to any of the studies that have been done and there is limited benefits so debating vest camera's is kind of pointless me thinks? We could discuss on how to break down those barriers around the police that protect them instead.

[Gendo]

Whether cameras would reduce, increase, or have no impact on police brutality and other abuses of power is a matter of objective fact that can be shown with studies and such. But The fact remains that police wearing cameras means that the civilian is under video surveillance while dealing with the police. If every cop is wearing a camera, then every time you talk to a police officer, you are being filmed. That sounds like it has all sorts of privacy and civil rights concerns. So whether or not it helps with violence; it seems like there are bigger issues there.

[Derived Absurdity]

Can you clarify what you are claiming with the Rialto study? It seems to me that you are using it as an example to Boomer on how cameras can increase force.

Yeah, I wasn't clear. I was just pointing out that there was one study at least that supposedly showed an increase in force correlated with more body cams, contrary to Boomer's claim.

Either way, there is no downside to the camera's according to any of the studies that have been done and there is limited benefits so debating vest camera's is kind of pointless me thinks?

Really? I just pointed out one study that suggests a downside. And debating them is pointless? Why? First of all all the studies are small, so they don't even mean much of anything, and they're all correlational, so they mean even less. We don't have any meaningful data on them right now. And even if we had conclusive studies, that's not exactly the only thing worth focusing on, is it? We can use inductive reasoning to figure out what's likely to happen based on what we already know. And there are quite a lot of potential downsides. Here are just a few I'm concerned about, to list them off.

a) It'll give police more power in the courtroom, by giving them an additional piece of evidence they can easily twist to their advantage. I've already gone over this one.

b) All of the footage captured will most likely be controlled by the police departments themselves, the very people the cameras are supposedly meant to hold to account. Many departments have already exempted footage from being released to the public citing the Freedom of Information Act, as they claim they aren't public records. They even argue they don't have to release footage after an investigation is over. So they'll be surveilling the public, NOT themselves, and they'll be able to store it for themselves (giving, as Liszt said, even more power to the state). What's more, a lot of this footage might be very personal, as police frequently enter peoples' private homes, and with body cams they'll be recording them.

c) They might store and then release footage certain people would not want released, such as the people they're recording. Dash cam footage is already used by TMZ and Internet users for entertainment and humiliation purposes. With police with body cams entering peoples' homes and encountering them in potentially embarrassing situations, that might increase. The police will choose which footage to release and which not, and if they want to embarrass someone, this will give them easier means. And any footage released with probably be tilted in the cop's favor.

d) It will almost certainly be used to help bolster the already intrusive and illegal surveillance state, which is growing stronger every year. High-tech surveillance gear and facial recognition technology in particular is already flowing into police departments at a fast rate, and with body cams they'll be able to tap into federal databases containing citizen photos when making routine traffic stops and whatnot. That's not going to further police accountability, it'll simply be utilized to increase state power.

e) And... most importantly... they will be FILMING THE CITIZEN, NOT THE COPS. They will put the CITIZENS UNDER SURVEILLANCE. Police body cams are not going to be aimed in on themselves, they will be AIMED OUTWARDS. From their perspective, not ours. They will be watching US, not the other way around. Bad if you want police accountability.

I could go on. All those are potential downsides. And by "potential" I mean "virtually certain". The supposed "benefits" are virtually nil compared to the downsides, especially when put into a broader context of encroaching surveillance.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

I don't think I have any real strong feelings about this one way or t'other. As yet, it has no impact here because police don't wear vest cams here, they do have dash cams.. so there's that..

But - in the course of reading thru the conversation, it does seem to raise some questions.

Yeah, I wasn't clear. I was just pointing out that there was one study at least that supposedly showed an increase in force correlated with more body cams, contrary to Boomer's claim.

I'm curious on a few counts with this conclusion - that wearing vest cams increased the incidences of police violence.. mostly cos I can't think of a single reason why they would and would tend to assume that this means that more incidences of police violence were actually captured - rather than there being an actual increase in police violence, which would seem to support the use of vest cams.. but I can't find the study you referred..

a) It'll give police more power in the courtroom, by giving them an additional piece of evidence they can easily twist to their advantage. I've already gone over this one.

I don't think I agree with this. It would provide the court with A piece of evidence that elevates the conversation from a he said she said (with the police testimony obviously taking precedence) to a "this is what happened - now you physically have to spin it so that it makes sense to get out of accountability" thing .. either way you look at it, it would still be harder (as opposed to impossible) for a cop to get out accountability than if the evidence wasn't there at all.

As for manipulating the footage - I'd be amazed if the company hasn't built in measures (like check digiting or any given number or relatively fail safe technical ways to assure that any given footage hasn't been tampered with) .. and if they haven't built in this tech - then you'd pretty much wanna know why given its pretty standard stuff these days.

b) All of the footage captured will most likely be controlled by the police departments themselves, the very people the cameras are supposedly meant to hold to account. Many departments have already exempted footage from being released to the public citing the Freedom of Information Act, as they claim they aren't public records. They even argue they don't have to release footage after an investigation is over. So they'll be surveilling the public, NOT themselves, and they'll be able to store it for themselves (giving, as Liszt said, even more power to the state). What's more, a lot of this footage might be very personal, as police frequently enter peoples' private homes, and with body cams they'll be recording them.

Well .. the footage will be trained on the citizen, which I kinda think is more important than training them on the police given, the courts job is to assess how reasonably the police behaved in response to the citizens actions - the citizens actions (where their hands are, what they have on them, whether they made any threatening moves or where just playing xbox) are far more important as pieces of evidence that what the cop is doing.. Plus .. if there are multiple police attending, then there should be footage of what the offending cop is doing in a broader sense.
They voice will still be recorded as well as the potential for their bodies .. As for records being released to the public - I don't really care given the law here has always been that what is presented in court is privileged .. The jury represents the public in a trial and that footage should be made available to them, given they are the ones tasked with finding the person guilty or not, I'd expect that wouldn't change the outcome at all.

To the personal stuff - anything in the public domain isn't protected .. footage taken in someone's house is but if we establish that the police have a right to enter a house for whatever reason, they would also by extension have the right to film it ..and that film would be protected by privacy laws.

c) They might store and then release footage certain people would not want released, such as the people they're recording. Dash cam footage is already used by TMZ and Internet users for entertainment and humiliation purposes. With police with body cams entering peoples' homes and encountering them in potentially embarrassing situations, that might increase. The police will choose which footage to release and which not, and if they want to embarrass someone, this will give them easier means. And any footage released with probably be tilted in the cop's favor.

See above. Dash cam footage is by its nature, filmed in the public domain where there is no expectation of privacy and so, no protections. Film taken inside a persons house would carry an expectation of privacy. I would suspect the laws in the states are similar to here where any footage taken on someone in their home would be subject to privacy laws.

d) It will almost certainly be used to help bolster the already intrusive and illegal surveillance state, which is growing stronger every year. High-tech surveillance gear and facial recognition technology in particular is already flowing into police departments at a fast rate, and with body cams they'll be able to tap into federal databases containing citizen photos when making routine traffic stops and whatnot. That's not going to further police accountability, it'll simply be utilized to increase state power.

Once again - public domain = no expectation of privacy. Terms like "illegal surveillance state" are just emotive. The police have always had the right to establish someone's identity - the method used is redundant.

e) And... most importantly... they will be FILMING THE CITIZEN, NOT THE COPS. They will put the CITIZENS UNDER SURVEILLANCE. Police body cams are not going to be aimed in on themselves, they will be AIMED OUTWARDS. From their perspective, not ours. They will be watching US, not the other way around. Bad if you want police accountability.

Technically, they will be recording both, the camera may be trained on the citizen but it will also record the cops. As I discussed, I think its probably more important to record the citizen in order to police the policemens response to their actions than the other way around.. Also note, in most circumstances, there should be multiple cameras recording multiple things .

The biggest issue in practice seems to be that police simply, apparently have some sort of right to refuse to hand over footage that they deem would show their culpability ..or they can claim convenient malfunctions to get out of providing damming evidence, which amazes me. You would think that part of implementing a system of accountability would mean that the surveillance would need to be on all the time and be a required part of their operational procedure that would result in some form of punishment if not adhered to..

[Derived Absurdity]

I'm curious on a few counts with this conclusion - that wearing vest cams increased the incidences of police violence.. mostly cos I can't think of a single reason why they would and would tend to assume that this means that more incidences of police violence were actually captured - rather than there being an actual increase in police violence, which would seem to support the use of vest cams.. but I can't find the study you referred..

Got it from here. http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/03/10/r ... rce-cases/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And, once again, it doesn't show that body cams increased police violence, just that more body cams was correlated with more violence. All such studies are correlational, which means their explanatory power is very limited... which is one of my points.

I don't think I agree with this. It would provide the court with A piece of evidence that elevates the conversation from a he said she said (with the police testimony obviously taking precedence) to a "this is what happened - now you physically have to spin it so that it makes sense to get out of accountability" thing .. either way you look at it, it would still be harder (as opposed to impossible) for a cop to get out accountability than if the evidence wasn't there at all.

Yeah, like I said, it'll make things easier for them, not harder. Video is very compelling evidence, and, like I said, studies have repeatedly shown that jurors are very easily misled by relatively irrelevant variables like angle or focus. Quick footage of a civilian protestor bumping into a cop, wrenched out of context, will make the prosecution's case easier.

You might not care that the footage will never be made public, but the primary reason people want body cams is so that the world-at-large will be able to see a cop caught in a criminal act, that the public will have a record of what happened. Making them secret and, more than that, in the control of the police departments completely negates their ostensible purpose. And as I said they're even allowed to keep the footage secret after an investigation ends, so they'll basically be kept away from the public forever. We don't want yet more surveillance of private citizens in the hands of the state.

I would be more reassured by privacy laws if I felt the cops would actually choose to follow them, and moreover that they would actually be punished if they didn't. As it is, they won't and they won't. Institutional barriers to accountability, and whatnot.

Terms like "illegal surveillance state" are accurate and descriptive and they get to the heart of the problem. America currently has the largest surveillance apparatus in the history of the world, and body cams without any structural changes to police institutions and the judicial system within which they operate will only help it grow. Knowing there's no "expectation of privacy" is quite a bit different than thinking that citizens under surveillance essentially all the time is a good idea. There's a happy medium somewhere here, my man.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Boomer wrote:While studies may be somewhat inconclusive they can't be completely ignored; to my knowledge there are no studies showing any correlation between police wearing personal cameras and an increase in use of force. Studies have shown quite the opposite, in fact.


DA wrote: One major study, in Rialto. And there's no reason to think the body cameras by themselves had anything at all to with it; other causative factors may have been at play. And there is at least one other study, in Denver, where the police monitor claimed that police used force more often during the trial period where they had personal cameras on.

Dragon Wrote: Can you clarify what you are claiming with the Rialto study? It seems to me that you are using it as an example to Boomer on how cameras can increase force.

[red]The Rialto study showed that officers without cameras were twice as likely to resort to force in the field as those with cameras.[/red]
DA Wrote: Yeah, I wasn't clear. I was just pointing out that there was one study at least that supposedly showed an increase in force correlated with more body cams, contrary to Boomer's claim.

DA, my initial post was asking you to clarify because you cited the rialto study as an example of increase in force from police wearing them when that is most definitely not the case. The Rialto study showed the opposite.
http://www.policefoundation.org/content ... orn-camera
There are no comprehensive studies done that have shown such a correlations between increase in force and wearing camera's. There are some limited studies on a decrease in force from officers wearing body cameras.
A study was undertaken back in 2013 and there just wasn't enough data to prove benefits or drawbacks to body camera's. Read the OJP study from 2013. It's about the best study out there as it was done by people in the actual field of crime/policing statistics.
You've made a lot of claims DA and I'm just wondering how you formulated those claims? The Denver study you mentioned was conducted and the official results were that body cams reduced force and citizen complaints. There is a privately run police monitor that objected to the findings but there is no references or citations. He claimed that the cameras didn't record most of use of force cases…but it's important to point out that well over half of those cases involved off duty officers working side jobs as security guards etc… They would not be required to turn on the cameras so this monitors claims seem off base?
As for the jury being manipulated by an attorney into seeing something out of context, that is a valid concern but not fully substantiated as there is very little actual data to support it. If there's a study out there that is based on actual research and data then can you provide a link?
There's a study going on right now on the fact that police brutality has increased even with the advent of camera phones and people being able to video encounters. Preliminary data is interesting in that citizen complaints remained flat for several years but then spiked substantially after 9/11. There is speculation that police brutality increased due to an increase in ex-military men entering the police force as a reaction to 9/11 and has remained steady.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

So, this is the bit of the article in reference:

Denver's independent police monitor, Nicholas Mitchell, also said police used force more often and citizens' complaints against officers rose during the cameras' six-month trial period in the city's busy downtown district. Police officials repeatedly said they expected the cameras would drive down those numbers.

And, once again, it doesn't show that body cams increased police violence, just that more body cams was correlated with more violence

So, technically, more body cams resulted in more people reporting police violence.. Intuitively, I imagine this could be explained by people knowing the police were recording their actions resulting in more people willing to bring the officers into accountability... which is a good thing right? .. or am I misinterpreting something?

Yeah, like I said, it'll make things easier for them, not harder. Video is very compelling evidence, and, like I said, studies have repeatedly shown that jurors are very easily misled by relatively irrelevant variables like angle or focus. Quick footage of a civilian protestor bumping into a cop, wrenched out of context, will make the prosecution's case easier.

I really don't see how it will make it easier for police to manipulate evidence as opposed to provide personal testimony in the absence of evidence.. Sure, footage could be taken out of context but the job of the defendants attorney would be to demand that context. The whole of the footage would be available to the prosecution and the defence.. It all sounds like a perfect solution fallacy in so much as if we can't demonstrate that it could never be manipulated then its not as good as not having this evidence at all. My thoughts are still that we have this existing situation, where there are cases of police brutality that demand accountability and at the moment, determining guilt is left to eye witness testimony and the relative power of the cops word over the civilians.. providing video evidence of what occurred, is still a step up from where we are at right now.. more so in situations where the courts could demand that all officers on a scene provide their cam footage to corroborate testimony. The more footage from more angle from different people would have to lead to a situation where it is harder, not easier to manipulate the jury especially as against to a situation where no footage is available at all.

but the primary reason people want body cams is so that the world-at-large will be able to see a cop caught in a criminal act, that the public will have a record of what happened

Depends on whether you agree that this is the primary purpose of the exercise. My objective would be to make the cops accountable in term of taking these cases to court and removing ambiguity as much as that's possible. As long as this evidence can be subpoenaed in court, then objective met. Making these videos available to the public at large would have privacy implications that I would be more concerned with. The jury in a court represents the public so, providing they can witness the evidence, and courts have the power to subpoena it, then that concern, for the purpose of the legal system, is met.

I would be more reassured by privacy laws if I felt the cops would actually choose to follow them, and moreover that they would actually be punished if they didn't.

Which really is the crux of the matter. Not so much that Cops aren't bound by privacy laws, cos my understanding is that they are, so that if a video was leaked by the police to the public that is protected by privacy laws, it would be a relatively easy matter to bring that to prosecution.

The problem, as it stands is that it seems there are plenty of opportunities to remove damning evidence from making it to a trial by claiming that the camera's weren't turned on or that the battery died or what not .. There should be some sort of operational rigour around this that builds in a requirement that the police are charged with ensuring these cameras are operational for the entire duration of their day.. As it stands, it almost reads that they have to turn these things on and off as needs demand which makes it rife for abuse. I don't see this as a problem with recording evidence as much as a problem with how the system has been implemented which would be overcome reasonably easily.

Terms like "illegal surveillance state" are accurate and descriptive and they get to the heart of the problem. America currently has the largest surveillance apparatus in the history of the world,

I don't disagree that America has privacy issues when it comes to monitoring its citizens, but more from the perspective of the range of powers the patriot act has given relevant authorities to monitor telephone exchanges or internet usage where there is an expectation of privacy.
Normal street surveillance in public areas has never had any privacy concerns because there is no expectation of privacy in a public space. I don't have a problem with this at all.. In fact there have been several rapes/murders here that have seen convictions precisely because we had camera's recording public spaces.. I honestly see no reason at all to be concerned with being filmed while I am out in a public space.
In terms of police filming a house raid, well, I guess if I accept that people have the right to enter my house for whatever legal provisions your state allows that, then I have no issue with them filming what they do when they do. I'd be more concerned with the laws that govern their ability to enter my house than I would around then filming them doing it.

Knowing there's no "expectation of privacy" is quite a bit different than thinking that citizens under surveillance essentially all the time is a good idea. There's a happy medium somewhere here, my man.

Well - I guess what I am saying is why should I be concerned about being under surveillance while I am in a public space? .. I pretty much assume that's the case as it stands and I pretty much expect that this is just an extension of what's always been the case. I just can't think of a case where this would cause me an enormous amount of concern?

[Boomer]

DA, my initial post was asking you to clarify because you cited the rialto study as an example of increase in force from police wearing them when that is most definitely not the case. The Rialto study showed the opposite.

He wasn't claiming the Rialto study showed the opposite. When he said "One major study, in Rialto.", it was in response to my sentence "Studies have shown quite the opposite, in fact.", trying to contradict my pluralizing of "studies" by pointing out there's only been one. While I feel the Rialto study is the most thorough and comprehensive, there have been other studies in Phoenix and Mesa, Arizona, as well as Aberdeen, Scotland, and Plymouth, England. Also, there's a wiki page with information on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_worn_video

Looking at the Denver situation it's kind of hard to compare it to any actual study; they didn't actually do anything to make a claim about cameras one way or the other.

[Dr_Liszt]

Derived is arguing that the studies were correlational.
I haven't read the studies myself, but it seems you are confusing two different things and only Salmon replied to what he was trying to say.

[Boomer]

The results of the studies might be correlational or they could be causational, but they shouldn't be brushed aside when every study is showing a net positive result.

Yours and his claim that cameras should be trained on police is off base. In the context of use of force what police are allowed to do is entirely predicated upon the actions of a citizen, thus we need to see the citizen to know whether the officer's actions are justified or not.

As for the rest of his points I'm not really in the mood to discuss the probability of some fairytale future Orwellian dystopia when we can't even agree on facts and studies in the here and now.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

I suppose I read it wrong...and am still reading it wrong. Oh well.

And I agree with Boomer.

[Dr_Liszt]

The results of the studies might be correlational or they could be causational, but they shouldn't be brushed aside when every study is showing a net positive result.

Yours and his claim that cameras should be trained on police is off base. In the context of use of force what police are allowed to do is entirely predicated upon the actions of a citizen, thus we need to see the citizen to know whether the officer's actions are justified or not.

As for the rest of his points I'm not really in the mood to discuss the probability of some fairytale future Orwellian dystopia when we can't even agree on facts and studies in the here and now.

Maybe is off base. But you have to remember the police is inherently a repressive force from the state. Not saying is not necessary but that it is inherently there to control and repress the population so we must be careful with any sort of power we give them.

Why is the police racist because the system is racist and the government protects the system. So why give more power to the system?

[Boomer]

In the context of use of force and accountability I don't accept the premise we're giving police more power. As salmon said without video evidence a case where force is used is, at best, the cops' word against a citizen's and, at worst, a cop justifying using lethal force with their description being the only testimony.

The justice system will still bend over backwards to protect their own, but, as I've said before, forcing police to adhere to what is captured on video as opposed to making up whatever story they want limits their power, not enhances it.

[Dr_Liszt]

Yeah. Which is why the limits of control should be on the police not the humans.

[Derived Absurdity]

You're giving off the strong impression that you think I'm simply against all video evidence. Which is funny, as I explicitly said that wasn't the case earlier.

I'm getting tired of you misrepresenting my points and not responding or even acknowledging many of the things I say. You do that all the time. Please stop it.

I also think it's sort of funny that "illegal surveillance state" is apparently emotive and can be discarded because of that, while "some fairytale future Orweillian dystopia" is apparently not.

[Derived Absurdity]

As for the other points:

I did not claim the Rialto study showed an increase in force, although I was unclear on that so the blame probably lies with me. I was also mistaken in claiming the Denver program was a "study" as in reality it was just that; a program. So it doesn't count.

@ Draco

There is a privately run police monitor that objected to the findings but there is no references or citations. He claimed that the cameras didn't record most of use of force cases…but it's important to point out that well over half of those cases involved off duty officers working side jobs as security guards etc… They would not be required to turn on the cameras so this monitors claims seem off base?

No. 35 of the cases weren't recorded because the officers were off-duty, but the other 45 cases were of officers who had cameras on them, and more than half of those cases weren't recorded because they either weren't activated or they didn't record anything. That's what I'm referring to.

As for the jury being manipulated by an attorney into seeing something out of context, that is a valid concern but not fully substantiated as there is very little actual data to support it. If there's a study out there that is based on actual research and data then can you provide a link?

Yes. I basically skimmed these. The third is an article.

https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/9 ... tation.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/htdocs/EvidenceO ... evices.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1043967818831405504" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Boomer]

You're giving off the strong impression that you think I'm simply against all video evidence. Which is funny, as I explicitly said that wasn't the case earlier.

I'm getting tired of you misrepresenting my points and not responding or even acknowledging many of the things I say. You do that all the time. Please stop it.

I also think it's sort of funny that "illegal surveillance state" is apparently emotive and can be discarded because of that, while "some fairytale future Orweillian dystopia" is apparently not.

I'm not trying to give an impression that you're against all video evidence, I'm just baffled at being so ardently against video evidence from a police perspective as, in my opinion, having video evidence from any angle helps garner the truth in the vast majority of cases.

Also, I apologize if I gave the impression that I'm not acknowledging/ignoring some of your points. It's simply that between salmon and Draco they said much of what I would have said anyways, so I didn't feel like repeating a point that was already made, but I probably should have made that known to you.

Lastly, I'm not trying to be overly crucial of your concerns of a surveillance state, as I agree civil liberties have been under major attack since 9/11. I'm just not convinced that police officers wearing cameras is an instance where civil liberties will be infringed upon.

[phe_de]

Whether cameras would reduce, increase, or have no impact on police brutality and other abuses of power is a matter of objective fact that can be shown with studies and such. But The fact remains that police wearing cameras means that the civilian is under video surveillance while dealing with the police.

Which is why I said that I have nothing against cameras filming public places 24/7. These cameras would be at fixed places, and therefore filming everyone.
And they should be viewed by everyone who wants do. I believe this type of camera is called "public webcam".

[Gypsy-Vanner]

No. 35 of the cases weren't recorded because the officers were off-duty, but the other 45 cases were of officers who had cameras on them, and more than half of those cases weren't recorded because they either weren't activated or they didn't record anything. That's what I'm referring to.

Ok. I'm trying to find the audit that was done and if I had looked closer I'd have seen that a word had been highlighted in one of the articles I had read which indicated a link to the audit. Duh. And I did find an article just posted about a use of force incident which resulted in the officer being suspended for 4 days without pay. It seems this Nick Mitchell public monitor's audit findings lit a fire under the officers butts to use the camera's properly. Here's the report

http://extras.denverpost.com/Denver_Mon ... Report.pdf

He's really optimistic that the program will work I guess. Even though the camera's were not turned on 1 out of 4 use of force incidents, it did actually reduce the number of use of force incidents overall. If the police chief is an honest person he'll employ the suggestions Nick made which make sense and I think a year from now Denver could be the ground zero of forcing police accountability.

I skimmed through your three links. The first one seems the most comprehensive. I think this is a distinct argument from whether police cams can reduce use of force incidents. The initial studies done have shown a reduction in use of force and that Nick Mitchell speculated police cams made officers more aware of their actions which resulted in a reduction in force as most people will try to avoid controversy, not engage in activity that creates such negative attention. It's much easier to engage in brutality if you are guaranteed to not get caught. I think it's fairly accepted that the normal person will usually chose the easiest path throughout their lives, and cops are no different. Who wants to be under the public eye like that?

Now, the 2nd issue is manipulation of jurors and how the view a video. Apparently, it's a thing and an important thing at that. I think though based on the evidence we do have, the number of officers being prosecuted/indicted for brutality will be reduced because there will be less incidents of brutality due to the body camera's so that's good. As to how to combat such manipulation in the cases that do come about...I haven't the slightest clue but I don't think it presents as big of a problem as you might be thinking which is a good thing and I've no doubt there'll be some intelligent schmoes that will come up with a way to fix the broken system so it will become a thing of the past.

[Derived Absurdity]

You're giving off the strong impression that you think I'm simply against all video evidence. Which is funny, as I explicitly said that wasn't the case earlier.

I'm getting tired of you misrepresenting my points and not responding or even acknowledging many of the things I say. You do that all the time. Please stop it.

I also think it's sort of funny that "illegal surveillance state" is apparently emotive and can be discarded because of that, while "some fairytale future Orweillian dystopia" is apparently not.

I'm not trying to give an impression that you're against all video evidence, I'm just baffled at being so ardently against video evidence from a police perspective as, in my opinion, having video evidence from any angle helps garner the truth in the vast majority of cases.

Also, I apologize if I gave the impression that I'm not acknowledging/ignoring some of your points. It's simply that between salmon and Draco they said much of what I would have said anyways, so I didn't feel like repeating a point that was already made, but I probably should have made that known to you.

Lastly, I'm not trying to be overly crucial of your concerns of a surveillance state, as I agree civil liberties have been under major attack since 9/11. I'm just not convinced that police officers wearing cameras is an instance where civil liberties will be infringed upon.

Ok, thanks. I apologize. All is well.