POLICE BODY CAMERAS / Former Giants RB shot, captured on uniform lapel camera

[Blindgreed1]

http://www.nydailynews.com/moment-cops-s...-1.1509451

[SIXFOOTERsez]

Aborigines doing what they do. Stupid motherfucker should have put down the knife.
The uniform cameras are new, pretty cool tech, should remove a lot of ambiguity in court.
Was that silly bitch defending the guy?

[Duchess]

BangBangBangBangBangBang - 6 times!

Whatta dumbass, they gave him more than one opportunity to drop the knife.

[Cheyne]

Aborigines doing what they do. Stupid motherfucker should have put down the knife.
The uniform cameras are new, pretty cool tech, should remove a lot of ambiguity in court.
Was that silly bitch defending the guy?

Yeah, she said "You didn't have to shoot him". OK, next time the cops should just let him slit her throat.

[Blindgreed1]

Aborigines doing what they do. Stupid motherfucker should have put down the knife.
The uniform cameras are new, pretty cool tech, should remove a lot of ambiguity in court.
Was that silly bitch defending the guy?

Yeah she did, but that's not all that uncommon in situations such as this. I'm sure it wasn't the first time that he committed an act of violence against her. I think the lapel cameras are awesome and they're popping up all over the place now. I think it's a great idea.

[Duchess]

I think they are a great idea too & they will work both ways.

I think there are a plethora of cops who throw their weight around & the authority has gone to their heads.

[Blindgreed1]

I think they are a great idea too & they will work both ways.

I think there are a plethora of cops who throw their weight around & the authority has gone to their heads.

Sing it sistah.

[FunkyBurger]

Cool video. Now I am guessing he spent all of his NFL money on 40's and ho's??? That house is a shit hole!! Sad he will now live in a cleaner, safer, healthier environment thanks to our tax dollars.

[Blindgreed1]

Cool video. Now I am guessing he spent all of his NFL money on 40's and ho's??? That house is a shit hole!! Sad he will now live in a cleaner, safer, healthier environment thanks to our tax dollars.

He played for the Giants. Nuff said.

[Duchess]

*snicker*

The team I love to hate. Rawr.

[HairOfTheDog]

As long as judges and juries don't let defense attorneys have a field day positioning perps as victims with lapel cam footage, I think they're great too.

Good to have actual film of what went down to use against criminals in court.

Good to have actual film of what went down to use against dirty cops in court.

Just a little worried that some perps will be let off the hook because not everybody understands that sometimes roughness is necessary and appropriate for cops and not everything gets captured in a snapshot. Always potential pros and cons, though, and the advantages seem to far outweigh the disadvantages in the case of lapel cams, IMO.

Interested to see if LAPD moves forward with lapel cams using funds donated by wealthy donors. Those little guys are like $900 each. I think some of the NYPD "stop and frisk" units are already wearing them, despite Bloomberg's objections.

[FunkyBurger]

I think they make great footage for first person view video games.

[HairOfTheDog]

You're quite the fountain of knowledge and insightful perspectives, Funkay.

I know, I know. You don't have time for somewhat constructive posts yet.

Sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for THAT day to arrive.

[HairOfTheDog]

I expanded the title of your thread, Gunnar, so we could jump off what you started across cases and for general body cam discussion.

Since you started this thread, many police departments across the country have started testing and/or rolling out police lapel or body cameras. The adoption of body cam requirements is supported by some Law Enforcement organizations and the ACLU.

In the wake of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, Brown's parents have asked US citizens to support expedited adoption of police body cams across the country.

From what I've researched, the body cams have thus far been a benefit to LE, both for defending officers' actions in contested shootings and as training opportunities.

I'm interested in what others here think -- there are a lot of people who apparently don't support required body cams for police officers.

This may be considered Graphic by some -- forewarning -- it shows an officer shooting a 64-year-old Akron man to death at a routine traffic stop last year. No blood or injuries shown.



The gun that the man reportedly pulled (hard to see it in the body cam video footage) turned out to be a bebe gun. The Akron University police officer was not charged -- the prosecutor used the video to determine that the shooting was justified because the officer followed his police training when he saw what he thought was a real gun.

Of course, that leads to questions as to whether the training is appropriate. The man, James Genda, was shot 15 times point blank from the driver's side window of his car. His daughter cannot understand why the officer had to unload his gun. Do (collective) you?

[Duchess]

there are a lot of people who apparently don't support required body cams for police officers.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't look at this as something positive for both sides.

[HairOfTheDog]

there are a lot of people who apparently don't support required body cams for police officers.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't look at this as something positive for both sides.

I haven't discussed body cams with anyone outside of Mock, so I can only go by articles on the topic and comments attached to those articles.

From what I've read, the biggest objections are related to (1) civilian privacy if the footage is published and (2) abuse of footage by LEOs when they supply the context to prosecutors (LEOs using video to support a false narration of what really happened).

Here are a couple of articles about those concerns.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-body...tml#page=1
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalre...olice.html

[SIXFOOTERsez]

there are a lot of people who apparently don't support required body cams for police officers.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't look at this as something positive for both sides.

Libtards never look at something thats used to get a conviction as anything good

[HairOfTheDog]

there are a lot of people who apparently don't support required body cams for police officers.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't look at this as something positive for both sides.

Libtards never look at something thats used to get a conviction as anything good

It's not only liberals, it's some police organizations themselves that are resistant to implementing the cams, despite their proven effectiveness in reducing brutality complaints and helping officers justify their actions in court.

I usually think individuals, cities, states, organizations...should be regulated as little as possible. But, I'm in full favor of police body-cams being a requirement across the country, for the benefit of both police officers and the community members they serve.

Released today:
Obama's plan, if it can earn congressional approval, would help pay for up to 50,000 body cameras nationwide—almost doubling the number currently deployed—by doling out $75 million in matching funds to local and state police departments over three years, to cover purchasing costs up to 50 percent.

But it's not just about money. A number of local police departments remain hesitant—if not downright skeptical—about body cameras, despite growing public demand and research that suggests positive benefits.

"At this juncture, it doesn't change anything," said Mike Puetz, a spokesman for the St. Petersburg Police Department in Florida, when asked about Obama's funding pledge. "From our perspective, and I think for most agencies, we're looking at the technology and looking at how it works in the real world regardless of who pays the bill."
"Each agency wants to take a look at them and take a look at how they work in their particular community and go from there," Puetz said. "You can't just give a camera to someone and say, 'Here, go wear it.' "

St. Petersburg's trepidation is not unusual. Although body cameras have become increasingly popular among law enforcement agencies in recent years, the decision to adopt them is generally made solely by local police chiefs. While some have embraced the technology as a new frontier that can bolster transparency and trust in their communities, others remain less convinced.

"Like any new technology, we really caution that before police agencies just jump in and start using them, to sit down and think about all the issues that they raise," said Lindsay Miller, a senior research associate at the Police Executive Research Forum, which has developed guidelines for body cameras but has not endorsed their implementation. "There are a lot of things that need to be considered, and that's why we advise agencies to do pilot testing."

Privacy groups are also wary that widespread use of body cameras could open up a Pandora's box of unintended consequences, such as the use of facial recognition, though the groups are generally supportive of the technology—as long as agencies tread carefully.

The potential infusion of cash from the federal government won't make police body cameras universal overnight, but advocates say it will help move the needle and raise recognition of the technology's benefits for good policing practices.

Full story: http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/poli...s-20141202

[Cutz]

My only concern with Bodcams would be that they'd be used to justify police and condemn citizens, without the reverse being true. In a nationally recognized case, you might have a police department come forward with the video, but for everyday occurrence of police abusing their authority, I'd bet that video never gets watched or see the light of day. While police scour the video for evidence of any crime you commit.

In the vid you posted, they put the shooter in a truck and tell him not to say a word. I would fear the videos that condemn their actions would get buried to protect their own. And even there you never see a gun or aggressive action in the video, just him recoiling and emptying his clip. The video evidence gives some sense of the situation, but actual evidence is extremely lacking. So if a cop acts like you have a gun for the tape, suddenly that's evidence of you having a gun.

[HairOfTheDog]

I think that's a valid concern, Cutz. I don't doubt that will happen in some cases.

Then again, even without a video, the officer's verbal narrative of what went down is typically gonna be given more weight than the civilian's anyway, in my experience.

I think overall, the body and dash cam videos increase objectivity and help highlight the truth more times than not. I'm really happy this South Carolina shooting, for example, was caught on dash cam. The (white) officer approached a (black) driver at the gas station for suspicion of no seat belt and asked the driver to get his license. So, the driver complied.



The driver did exactly what the cop asked and got shot at four times and hit once anyway. I love how the dipshit gung-ho cop tries to tell the confused driver that he got shot because he "dove into his vehicle too aggressively". Pffft. Crock of shit. That cop should not have been a cop. And, thankfully, he's no longer a cop.

Were it not for the dash cam, I could easily see a prosecutor having believed the cop's version of events (which may have been his true, albeit highly inaccurate, perception) and concluding that the cop was justified in shooting because the driver acted suspiciously.