Current Events > A solution to "cop didn't have body camera turned on"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Grischnak posted...

I think that generally speaking they should have them on most of the time but to stand there and shout "THEY SHOULD NEVER TURN THEM OFF AND IF THEY DO THEY SHOULD DO TO PRISON FOREVER!!!" is just absurd.

i never said they should go to prison. i said they should never be shut off while the cop is on duty. period. And yes, having it on while talking to a witness can help protect either the cop or the witness, if the witness tries to lie later or if the cop tries to lie in his report. There is plenty of bodycam footage out there with cops acting witnesses questions..
---

Can anyone find a situation where police misconduct was alleged, the officer switched off their body cameras and argued for doing so under the "I was dealing with a witness who would not talk to me with my body camera on" excuse? I've literally never heard this before
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Grischnak posted...

I think that generally speaking they should have them on most of the time but to stand there and shout "THEY SHOULD NEVER TURN THEM OFF AND IF THEY DO THEY SHOULD DO TO PRISON FOREVER!!!" is just absurd.

i never said they should go to prison. i said they should never be shut off while the cop is on duty. period. And yes, having it on while talking to a witness can help protect either the cop or the witness, if the witness tries to lie later or if the cop tries to lie in his report. There is plenty of bodycam footage out there with cops acting witnesses questions..

Oh. So you literally think confidential witnesses and informants shouldn't exist. Well, that is a stance. I'll give you that. Though forcing witnesses/informants to put themselves at even greater risk seems a bit cold blooded to me so I can't say I agree with your stance.

Its amazing that I've seen protestors take full on beatings from cops and their body or headcam just keeps rolling, but cop's body cams "malfunction" at the slightest bit of a scuffle or trouble.
---

SSJCAT posted...

f t p

---

BewmHedshot posted...

Just what cops need, more complicated gear.

Better than someone who doesnt deserve to get shot getting shot and then the person responsible gets away with it.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

nemu posted...

How big is the problem with police violence in the first place? Do we have reliable statistics saying it's such a large problem?

Interestingly we have reliable statistics saying violent crime and attacks on police goes up when body cams are mandatory.

But people very aggressively intentionally ignore that since they don't like it.

You got those statistics available?
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

nemu posted...

How big is the problem with police violence in the first place? Do we have reliable statistics saying it's such a large problem?

Interestingly we have reliable statistics saying violent crime and attacks on police goes up when body cams are mandatory.

But people very aggressively intentionally ignore that since they don't like it.

You got those statistics available?

There's no point in engaging UR.

He'll be singing a different tune on this exact subject as soon as he decides to engage his gimmick.
---

Southernfatman posted...

My point is the system is broken and corruption is rampant up and down departments. You'd have to get the Department of Justice involved for what you're saying and they don't want to change anything either especially with the Republicans in charge.

If getting rid of all these bad cops were as easy as you think it is, then we wouldn't be having as many of these abuses and shootings and murders in the first place.

This happened in Los Angeles County. The FBI secretly conducted an investigation on Sheriff Lee Baca and Under-sheriff Paul Tanaka over allegations of corruption in the jail system. They went so far as to use an informant as an inside plant. The FBI would smuggle burner phones into the jail so that they could keep contact. However, Baca caught wind of this and hid the informant by shuffling him from one jail to another.

Our current Sheriff was picked by the same dirty police union and he reeks. He turned around and gave jobs back to the same officials who had been involved in Baca's dirt.
---

nemu posted...

How big is the problem with police violence in the first place? Do we have reliable statistics saying it's such a large problem? It's not like innocent people getting gunned down by corrupt, disgusting people wearing the guise of protectors should be treated as a non-issue, but you'd think it's 20% of all police from how some people hold such anti-cop sentiments.

Last year there was 60 million police calls for service. Out of those calls for service 900 people were killed from police involved shootings. No stats how many of those are justified like an active shooter or bad shootings.

To answer your question its not a problem.. but every 2 months a bad shoot comes up and that defines all 60 million interactions
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

nemu posted...

How big is the problem with police violence in the first place? Do we have reliable statistics saying it's such a large problem?

Interestingly we have reliable statistics saying violent crime and attacks on police goes up when body cams are mandatory.

But people very aggressively intentionally ignore that since they don't like it.

You got those statistics available?

He's probably talking about this study:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1477370816643734

Though that's a global study and not a US focused one.

To respond to a point that nobody seems to understand. Always on body cameras will never work.

Space and cost. It costs A LOT of money and a TON per officer on a days worth of footage thats probably only a couple hours worth of footage long. Body camera companies nor the departments would logically be able to pay 10 hours a day per cop continuous HD footage

Second the technology is just not there. My camera barely makes it through a 10 hour shift. Our policy is to turn the camera on during a call and citizen contact. So its not even on for 10 hours and already dying. Ive also replaced my camera twice in 2019 and my battery pack three times. They malfunction a lot.
---

Grischnak posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

Grischnak posted...

I think that generally speaking they should have them on most of the time but to stand there and shout "THEY SHOULD NEVER TURN THEM OFF AND IF THEY DO THEY SHOULD DO TO PRISON FOREVER!!!" is just absurd.

i never said they should go to prison. i said they should never be shut off while the cop is on duty. period. And yes, having it on while talking to a witness can help protect either the cop or the witness, if the witness tries to lie later or if the cop tries to lie in his report. There is plenty of bodycam footage out there with cops acting witnesses questions..

Oh. So you literally think confidential witnesses and informants shouldn't exist. Well, that is a stance. I'll give you that. Though forcing witnesses/informants to put themselves at even greater risk seems a bit cold blooded to me so I can't say I agree with your stance.

You never seen a blurred face on tv or heard a modified voice?
---

DrizztLink posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

nemu posted...

How big is the problem with police violence in the first place? Do we have reliable statistics saying it's such a large problem?

Interestingly we have reliable statistics saying violent crime and attacks on police goes up when body cams are mandatory.

But people very aggressively intentionally ignore that since they don't like it.

You got those statistics available?

There's no point in engaging UR.

He'll be singing a different tune on this exact subject as soon as he decides to engage his gimmick.

Why does everyone always feel the need to point out everyone's "gimmick" when I engage in topics?
---

Because I tend to tell people to stop shoving their hands into a campfire as well?
---

DrizztLink posted...

Because I tend to tell people to stop shoving their hands into a campfire as well?

Lol, why? If I see an adult attempting to put their hands in a camp fire I'll watch them and laugh. If I see a child attempt I'll stop them and explain why they shouldn't. But it's not just this instance, it seems to happen all the time when I engage people that have "gimmicks"
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

You never seen a blurred face on tv or heard a modified voice?

You clearly don't understand what we're talking about so do keep out of it, eh?

Firing the gun is the event that starts a 60 second countdown until the camera switches on
---

Grischnak posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

You never seen a blurred face on tv or heard a modified voice?

You clearly don't understand what we're talking about so do keep out of it, eh?

Considering the relevant part of the conversation was in the quote chain I quoted, I do in fact understand what you're talking about.
---

USB-C posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

You'd be creating a situation where almost all of these things favor a narrative against the cop, because the video is just going to be starting with somebody getting shot.

so whats the issue

The "starting with" part that you glossed over.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Grischnak posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

You never seen a blurred face on tv or heard a modified voice?

You clearly don't understand what we're talking about so do keep out of it, eh?

Considering the relevant part of the conversation was in the quote chain I quoted, I do in fact understand what you're talking about.

You're talking about the situation like we're talking about being on Cops or something. If somebody doesn't want to be recorded then they don't want to be recorded. Recording them and promising to blur it is missing the point. For a timely example, look at the Jussie Smollett video that released today. In it he asked cops to turn off their body cams. Which they did. Now, obviously in that situation he was trying to cover his own ass, but there are plenty of actual victims(and he was thought to be a victim at the time) that don't want to be recorded as well. They should have that option. If I, for example, got raped and the cops found me right after the rape I wouldn't want to be recorded. But i guess in your world I don't deserve that option. Just blur my face and everything is cool, right?

BeantownHero posted...

Can anyone find a situation where police misconduct was alleged, the officer switched off their body cameras and argued for doing so under the "I was dealing with a witness who would not talk to me with my body camera on" excuse? I've literally never heard this before

---

Grischnak posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Grischnak posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

You never seen a blurred face on tv or heard a modified voice?

You clearly don't understand what we're talking about so do keep out of it, eh?

Considering the relevant part of the conversation was in the quote chain I quoted, I do in fact understand what you're talking about.

You're talking about the situation like we're talking about being on Cops or something. If somebody doesn't want to be recorded then they don't want to be recorded. Recording them and promising to blur it is missing the point. For a timely example, look at the Jussie Smollett video that released today. In it he asked cops to turn off their body cams. Which they did. Now, obviously in that situation he was trying to cover his own ass, but there are plenty of actual victims(and he was thought to be a victim at the time) that don't want to be recorded as well. They should have that option. If I, for example, got raped and the cops found me right after the rape I wouldn't want to be recorded. But i guess in your world I don't deserve that option. Just blur my face and everything is cool, right?

Ok, but at no point in that chain were you talking about victims. You were talking about confidential informants or witnesses. Why are you trying to act like I can't go back and see what was being said when you actively lie about what you were talking about?
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Ok, but at no point in that chain were you talking about victims. You were talking about confidential informants or witnesses. Why are you trying to act like I can't go back and see what was being said when you actively lie about what you were talking about?

Dude. My point was always "I think cops should have body cams on at almost all times but there are certain situations where it is completely reasonable to turn them off". Witnesses were just one example. Not my fault you can't read between the lines. Like I said, you clearly didn't understand the argument so you should have stayed out of it. But call me a "liar" if that makes you feel better. Can't have an argument without the other guy being evil, no?

BeantownHero posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

treewojima posted...

police officers should have next to no privacy while on the job. always on cameras are the way to go

Is an unpragmatic emotional response that might "feel" good but will just cost a fortune and result in increased violent crime and probably deaths while doing close to nothing to curb bad cops.

In what situation does your run of the mill cop need to turn their body cameras off?

Any "Situation" I could give would be a hypothetical.

The siutations in practice would be ones that the police force know body cameras would be a net negative. Such as scenarios or areas where using them nets increased violence or the police have immensely strict budgets.

What's the point in having police chiefs and ranks and experienced veterans if we 're going to demand that they are not allowed to use their judgement.

There's a reason that when the Ferguson and Los Angeles riots were going down, the activists causing them were telling the police not to wear body cams.

Body cams are a tool and a useful one. Mandatory body cams is like giving everyone mandatory sledgehammers. A waste of time, money and ultimately harmful

I mean for example, we don't need to go any further than CE to see that guy who headbutted the car. What happened in scenario? The cop got his body cam knocked off.

Now imagine if that was a dirty cop who wanted to fuck people up, look how easily it would be for them?
---

Grischnak posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Ok, but at no point in that chain were you talking about victims. You were talking about confidential informants or witnesses. Why are you trying to act like I can't go back and see what was being said when you actively lie about what you were talking about?

Dude. My point was always "I think cops should have body cams on at almost all times but there are certain situations where it is completely reasonable to turn them off". Witnesses were just one example. Not my fault you can't read between the lines. Like I said, you clearly didn't understand the argument so you should have stayed out of it. But call me a "liar" if that makes you feel better. Can't have an argument without the other guy being evil, no?

I don't understand why you are being overtly hostile towards me. I responded based on what you said, I'm sorry I am not a mind reader and therefore didn't respond to what you meant. I agree very much that there are times in which it is reasonable for them to be turned off. My response was purely based on what you said regarding witnesses and confidential informants based on if they were always on that's it. If you want to have reasonable discussions with people you might want to reconsider your approach on how you speak to them.
---