When Cops Wear Cameras
A tweet by Jason Calcanis:
@Jason
Nytimes: Police in California wore cameras & Complaints dropped 88% / use of force dropped 60%.
A quote from The NYT story by Ian Lovett:
"When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better," Chief Farrar said. "And if a citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better."
There really is no down side to this - except for the thugs (uniformed and otherwise.)
MarkD at August 13, 2014 7:10 AM
It is so important to have "eyes" on police as they do their jobs.
By the way, I write in "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" about those who feel they've been dealt with unfairly in a traffic stop. More and more police cars have cameras, and though you may not be able to right the wrong right there (especially if you've been beaten or unfairly searched), but retired officer Tracy Ambrico says the thing to do is call for a supervisor there or at the station and file a complaint. Very important to do this.
Amy Alkon at August 13, 2014 7:59 AM
chances are the citizen will behave a little better
Yeah, 'cuz anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law.
In HiDef, no less.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 13, 2014 8:12 AM
Just think what a difference it would make in the Ferguson riots if they could have released the footage of what happened in the shooting of the kid.
It would have either exonerated the cop or the kid quickly.
Jim P. at August 13, 2014 11:32 AM
Just think what a difference it would make in the Ferguson riots if they could have released the footage of what happened in the shooting of the kid.
Agreed. And now the authorities there are banning TV news cameras, or trying to.
Kevin at August 13, 2014 11:49 AM
Ferg.
Ferg.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at August 13, 2014 3:07 PM
Ferg.
Ferg.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at August 13, 2014 3:08 PM
Note that gun cameras - easy to attach to a duty-issue Glock, for instance - have been available for awhile.
Somebody's figured out a reason not to use them.
Radwaste at August 13, 2014 3:44 PM
Note `first comment.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at August 13, 2014 4:20 PM
So I'm wondering how this all ties into what's happening in St. Louis. I've read conflicting reports about the original incident. Video from a body cam, if any such exists, would go a long way towards resoving that deal.
Cousin Dave at August 14, 2014 7:25 AM
>> Video from a body cam, if any such exists, would go a long way towards resoving that deal.
If the police had video exonerating the officer we would have seen it by now.
Matt at August 14, 2014 8:29 AM
Radwaste: A gun camera won't document how a dispute started or progressed to the point that the cop felt he needed a gun. It could help in the "it looked like he had a gun" cases, but most such cases happen with poor lighting, where a camera that is small and light enough to not interfere with gun handling, and rugged enough to survive recoil, is quite unlikely to capture the details.
markm at August 14, 2014 6:09 PM
"If the police had video exonerating the officer we would have seen it by now."
Good point. I'm seeing reports now where the Ferguson PD is claiming that they have body cameras, but the officer in question was, by pure chance, not using one that day. Hmmm.
Cousin Dave at August 15, 2014 6:55 AM
Leave a comment