nathanhm
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by nathanhm on Aug 22, 2014 19:15:01 GMT -5
One of my family members was a police officer so I'm not going to comment on the Ferguson case because I can't be completely unbiased. As others have said, a police officer is sometimes called upon to chase a suspect on foot, scale fences, physically fight and other instances of physical activity. So I am against anything that gets in the way of his/her being able to do these things. The officer is usually carrying a pistol, ammo, nightstick and body armor, all making it difficult to do any of these. The idea of requiring the officer to have a body camera is just another item that will interfere with the ability to do the job of a police officer. Any cops that are against wearing cameras should surrender their badges and guns. Almost every jurisdiction that has implemented required cameras has seen complaints against officers drop and also seen violence against officers drop. Everyone behaves better when they are being filmed. If these cops believe they are being unfairly condemned for their actions, then the camera should exonerate them.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,330
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 22, 2014 20:49:31 GMT -5
One of my family members was a police officer so I'm not going to comment on the Ferguson case because I can't be completely unbiased. As others have said, a police officer is sometimes called upon to chase a suspect on foot, scale fences, physically fight and other instances of physical activity. So I am against anything that gets in the way of his/her being able to do these things. The officer is usually carrying a pistol, ammo, nightstick and body armor, all making it difficult to do any of these. The idea of requiring the officer to have a body camera is just another item that will interfere with the ability to do the job of a police officer. Ed, I spent approximately 1/4 of my career at the Department of Justice representing federal law enforcement officers (DEA, FBI, ATF, CBP etc) who allegedly violated the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens or persons in the United States. IMHO, a body camera, especially with the miniaturization of the cameras, will not interfere with a police officer's job. Who often wear body cams -- U.S. Special Forces in conducting their wartime missions. If they can wear them w/o adverse operational impact, a civilian police officer can as well. In fact, in my experience and borne out by facts of PDs that do employ body cams, it would eliminate false complaints against officers. The objection is actually a privacy concern for some, whether members of the public or the police themselves.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,330
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 22, 2014 20:56:29 GMT -5
One of my family members was a police officer so I'm not going to comment on the Ferguson case because I can't be completely unbiased. As others have said, a police officer is sometimes called upon to chase a suspect on foot, scale fences, physically fight and other instances of physical activity. So I am against anything that gets in the way of his/her being able to do these things. The officer is usually carrying a pistol, ammo, nightstick and body armor, all making it difficult to do any of these. The idea of requiring the officer to have a body camera is just another item that will interfere with the ability to do the job of a police officer. P.S I also represented members of SEAL Team Six in an allegation of abuse in which a video of the alleged abuse actually helped exonerate them, and demonstrated that the allegation was a gross exaggeration of the actual circumstances of an interrogation.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Aug 22, 2014 22:27:50 GMT -5
One of my family members was a police officer so I'm not going to comment on the Ferguson case because I can't be completely unbiased. As others have said, a police officer is sometimes called upon to chase a suspect on foot, scale fences, physically fight and other instances of physical activity. So I am against anything that gets in the way of his/her being able to do these things. The officer is usually carrying a pistol, ammo, nightstick and body armor, all making it difficult to do any of these. The idea of requiring the officer to have a body camera is just another item that will interfere with the ability to do the job of a police officer. Are you suggesting that police not carry a pistol, ammo, nightstick and body armor because they get in the way of his/her being able to chase a suspect on foot, scale fences, physically fight and other instances of physical activity? I didn't think so. Seriously, Ed?
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,322
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 22, 2014 23:43:06 GMT -5
One of my family members was a police officer so I'm not going to comment on the Ferguson case because I can't be completely unbiased. As others have said, a police officer is sometimes called upon to chase a suspect on foot, scale fences, physically fight and other instances of physical activity. So I am against anything that gets in the way of his/her being able to do these things. The officer is usually carrying a pistol, ammo, nightstick and body armor, all making it difficult to do any of these. The idea of requiring the officer to have a body camera is just another item that will interfere with the ability to do the job of a police officer. Any cops that are against wearing cameras should surrender their badges and guns. Almost every jurisdiction that has implemented required cameras has seen complaints against officers drop and also seen violence against officers drop. Everyone behaves better when they are being filmed. If these cops believe they are being unfairly condemned for their actions, then the camera should exonerate them. Nathan, that first statement is a bit strong IMO. Ask a public school teacher if they would allow a camera in their classroom. There are pros and cons for certain. Especially if certain segments of recorded video can be disallowed in a court of law. Context is important. I do agree that early studies suggest that it's a good thing for everyone. But I'm one of the few Hoyas, apparently, that isn't an attorney. I'd be interested to hear from one more knowledgeable about how those videos are presented. Is it piece by piece or all or nothing? I assume it's not all or nothing which could make it a bit murkier.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,330
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 23, 2014 5:39:43 GMT -5
Any cops that are against wearing cameras should surrender their badges and guns. Almost every jurisdiction that has implemented required cameras has seen complaints against officers drop and also seen violence against officers drop. Everyone behaves better when they are being filmed. If these cops believe they are being unfairly condemned for their actions, then the camera should exonerate them. Nathan, that first statement is a bit strong IMO. Ask a public school teacher if they would allow a camera in their classroom. There are pros and cons for certain. Especially if certain segments of recorded video can be disallowed in a court of law. Context is important. I do agree that early studies suggest that it's a good thing for everyone. But I'm one of the few Hoyas, apparently, that isn't an attorney. I'd be interested to hear from one more knowledgeable about how those videos are presented. Is it piece by piece or all or nothing? I assume it's not all or nothing which could make it a bit murkier. tashoya, by policy on the federal level, a prosecutor would err on the side of disclosing all the video. Federal prosecutors are obligated to exceed the disclosure obligations mandated by the Supreme Court or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. United States Attorney's Manual Section 9-5.001.C "Disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment information beyond that which is constitutionally and legally required. Department policy recognizes that a fair trial will often include examination of relevant exculpatory or impeachment information that is significantly probative of the issues before the court but that may not, on its own, result in an acquittal or, as is often colloquially expressed, make the difference between guilt and innocence." Section 9-5.001.F "Comment. This policy establishes guidelines for the exercise of judgment and discretion by attorneys for the government in determining what information to disclose to a criminal defendant pursuant to the government's disclosure obligation as set out in Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States and its obligation to seek justice in every case. . . As the Supreme Court has explained, disclosure is constitutionally required when evidence in the possession of the prosecutor or prosecution team is material to guilt, innocence or punishment. Under this policy, the government's disclosure will exceed its constitutional obligations. Thus, this policy encourages prosecutors to err on the side of disclosure in close questions of materiality and identifies standards that favor greater disclosure in advance of trial through the production of exculpatory information that is inconsistent with any element of any charged crime and impeachment information that casts a substantial doubt upon either the accuracy of any evidence the government intends to rely on to prove an element of any charged crime or that might have a significant bearing on the admissibility of prosecution evidence." Moreover, under Federal Rule of Evidence 403: "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Thus, if a video is offered in evidence by the prosecutor that the defense believes is incomplete, confusing or edited, the defense can challenge its admissibility. That's why as a prosecutor I'd disclose the whole video to the defense. Here's a Washington Post article, predating the Ferguson incident, which discusses pros/cons of body cams and some results from police departments that have implemented their use: www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/police-body-cameras-spur-privacy-debate/2013/11/10/7e9ee504-2549-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,322
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 23, 2014 9:09:43 GMT -5
Nathan, that first statement is a bit strong IMO. Ask a public school teacher if they would allow a camera in their classroom. There are pros and cons for certain. Especially if certain segments of recorded video can be disallowed in a court of law. Context is important. I do agree that early studies suggest that it's a good thing for everyone. But I'm one of the few Hoyas, apparently, that isn't an attorney. I'd be interested to hear from one more knowledgeable about how those videos are presented. Is it piece by piece or all or nothing? I assume it's not all or nothing which could make it a bit murkier. tashoya, by policy on the federal level, a prosecutor would err on the side of disclosing all the video. Federal prosecutors are obligated to exceed the disclosure obligations mandated by the Supreme Court or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. United States Attorney's Manual Section 9-5.001.C "Disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment information beyond that which is constitutionally and legally required. Department policy recognizes that a fair trial will often include examination of relevant exculpatory or impeachment information that is significantly probative of the issues before the court but that may not, on its own, result in an acquittal or, as is often colloquially expressed, make the difference between guilt and innocence." Section 9-5.001.F "Comment. This policy establishes guidelines for the exercise of judgment and discretion by attorneys for the government in determining what information to disclose to a criminal defendant pursuant to the government's disclosure obligation as set out in Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States and its obligation to seek justice in every case. . . As the Supreme Court has explained, disclosure is constitutionally required when evidence in the possession of the prosecutor or prosecution team is material to guilt, innocence or punishment. Under this policy, the government's disclosure will exceed its constitutional obligations. Thus, this policy encourages prosecutors to err on the side of disclosure in close questions of materiality and identifies standards that favor greater disclosure in advance of trial through the production of exculpatory information that is inconsistent with any element of any charged crime and impeachment information that casts a substantial doubt upon either the accuracy of any evidence the government intends to rely on to prove an element of any charged crime or that might have a significant bearing on the admissibility of prosecution evidence." Moreover, under Federal Rule of Evidence 403: "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Thus, if a video is offered in evidence by the prosecutor that the defense believes is incomplete, confusing or edited, the defense can challenge its admissibility. That's why as a prosecutor I'd disclose the whole video to the defense. Here's a Washington Post article, predating the Ferguson incident, which discusses pros/cons of body cams and some results from police departments that have implemented their use: www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/police-body-cameras-spur-privacy-debate/2013/11/10/7e9ee504-2549-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html Thank you SSHoya. Much appreciated.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 23, 2014 9:35:08 GMT -5
A police officer's duties are to prevent crimes, to enforce laws, to apprehend suspects and to make our communities safer. They carry pistols, ammo and nightsticks to assist them in performing their duties. Because they are often in dangerous situations, most choose to wear body armor. Carrying anything else gets in the way of their ability to perform their duties.
I accept that having a video record of events is useful in those cases where the evidence is otherwise difficult to interpret but let's not impose its use on every single police officer performing his/her duties. My family member had actual cases of trying to wrestle to the ground for apprehension an LSD-crazed individual, staking out and physically tackling a suspected serial rapist (later convicted), chasing and scaling fences to arrest a suspect, etc. In my view a body camera would have interfered with the ability to accomplish any of these.
Would any of you lawyers want someone to require that you wear a body camera because you might do something unlawful in the pursuit of your work, and because some lawyers have actually done unlawful things? In your case wearing the camera would be merely an inconvenience rather than a hindrance.
Suggest trying to put yourselves in the shoes of a police officer who faces potential dangerous situations every time he puts on the uniform.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 23, 2014 10:12:08 GMT -5
A police officer's duties are to prevent crimes, to enforce laws, to apprehend suspects and to make our communities safer. They carry pistols, ammo and nightsticks to assist them in performing their duties. Because they are often in dangerous situations, most choose to wear body armor. Carrying anything else gets in the way of their ability to perform their duties. I accept that having a video record of events is useful in those cases where the evidence is otherwise difficult to interpret but let's not impose its use on every single police officer performing his/her duties. My family member had actual cases of trying to wrestle to the ground for apprehension an LSD-crazed individual, staking out and physically tackling a suspected serial rapist (later convicted), chasing and scaling fences to arrest a suspect, etc. In my view a body camera would have interfered with the ability to accomplish any of these. Would any of you lawyers want someone to require that you wear a body camera because you might do something unlawful in the pursuit of your work, and because some lawyers have actually done unlawful things? In your case wearing the camera would be merely an inconvenience rather than a hindrance. Suggest trying to put yourselves in the shoes of a police officer who faces potential dangerous situations every time he puts on the uniform. Ed you can add one more duty policeman are going to have in the future: not abusing the citizenry because they think they can get away with it. Any conservative worthy of the name would understand that preventing heavily armed agents of the state from abusing citizens is at least as important as apprehending suspects. What is wrong with you? They don't even have to "carry" the camera any more than they have to carry their badge or name tag. There is simply no reasonable way to be against wearing these tiny wearable body cameras unless you're afraid of how much abuse of power these cameras will reveal. How thick can you be anyway? The evidence from departments who employ them is staggering. I'm afraid your position here that policemen would be endangering themselves because they have to carry something stuck to their chest is so ludicrous that you have shown yourself to debating in bad faith. I can draw no other conclusion then that you are reflexively against the cameras because you don't want the cops having to be scrutinised when they're acting excessively aggressive, something it is fair to say you know they do often.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,330
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 23, 2014 10:28:01 GMT -5
A police officer's duties are to prevent crimes, to enforce laws, to apprehend suspects and to make our communities safer. They carry pistols, ammo and nightsticks to assist them in performing their duties. Because they are often in dangerous situations, most choose to wear body armor. Carrying anything else gets in the way of their ability to perform their duties. I accept that having a video record of events is useful in those cases where the evidence is otherwise difficult to interpret but let's not impose its use on every single police officer performing his/her duties. My family member had actual cases of trying to wrestle to the ground for apprehension an LSD-crazed individual, staking out and physically tackling a suspected serial rapist (later convicted), chasing and scaling fences to arrest a suspect, etc. In my view a body camera would have interfered with the ability to accomplish any of these. Would any of you lawyers want someone to require that you wear a body camera because you might do something unlawful in the pursuit of your work, and because some lawyers have actually done unlawful things? In your case wearing the camera would be merely an inconvenience rather than a hindrance. Suggest trying to put yourselves in the shoes of a police officer who faces potential dangerous situations every time he puts on the uniform. Ed, lawyers aren't typcally engaged in confrontations with the public in the practice of law -- which is where the allegations of physical abuse occur. Respectfully, your lawyer analogy fails. I have put myself in the shoes of law enforcement since I spent a not insubstantial part of my career as a DOJ attorney defending law enforcement officers. Another instance where the use of video is becoming more prevlaent is in police interviews/interrogations. Video counters allegations of violation of 5th Amendment rghts when securing confessions from suspects. Many PDs support this, the FBI does not, for its own reasons of which I am familiar and may actually disagree with it on that issue. However, you haven't explained why wearing a miniature camera will physically interfere with a police officer during a confrontation. Can you explain why many PDs want cameras? www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/S-F-police-seek-cameras-to-capture-whole-picture-4997404.php www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/S-F-police-seek-cameras-to-capture-whole-picture-4997404.php www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/S-F-police-seek-cameras-to-capture-whole-picture-4997404.php
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,330
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 23, 2014 10:34:16 GMT -5
Sorry about the triple link posted above. But Ed, are you aware of how small body cams are?
"SFPD will be using the same system as BART, the Axon Flex by Taser International. The camera is light enough to clip to the bill of a cap or a shirt lapel." How does a cigar size pen camera affect an officer in a physical confrontation? It's not like the officer is carrying around a Sony Betacam!!
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,330
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 23, 2014 10:43:10 GMT -5
Ed, if the Intl Assn of Chiefs of Police supports body cameras, what's the problem? Here's IACP's press release of June 2014. www.theiacp.org/ViewResult?SearchID=2413"A growing number of law enforcement agencies are adopting BWCs to document interactions during police-suspect encounters, at crime and incident scenes, and during traffic stops. In many instances, law enforcement agencies have found BWCs useful for officers in the favorable resolution of both administrative and criminal complaints and as a defense resource in cases of civil liability. BWCs provide a clearly documented, firsthand, objective account of what was said and what occurred during the incident in question. In addition, BWCs can provide investigators, prosecutors, and juries with far more detailed, accurate, and compelling evidence. Experience has also shown that BWCs have a positive influence on the behavior of officers themselves, promoting accountability and serving as an important training aid."
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 23, 2014 12:01:52 GMT -5
As I posted earlier, the placement of cameras on the local transit authority buses had two wonderful effects. False claims dropped dramatically and real claims were justified.
I have to believe the same will be true if body cameras become the norm.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 23, 2014 12:49:59 GMT -5
A police officer's duties are to prevent crimes, to enforce laws, to apprehend suspects and to make our communities safer. They carry pistols, ammo and nightsticks to assist them in performing their duties. Because they are often in dangerous situations, most choose to wear body armor. Carrying anything else gets in the way of their ability to perform their duties. I accept that having a video record of events is useful in those cases where the evidence is otherwise difficult to interpret but let's not impose its use on every single police officer performing his/her duties. My family member had actual cases of trying to wrestle to the ground for apprehension an LSD-crazed individual, staking out and physically tackling a suspected serial rapist (later convicted), chasing and scaling fences to arrest a suspect, etc. In my view a body camera would have interfered with the ability to accomplish any of these. Would any of you lawyers want someone to require that you wear a body camera because you might do something unlawful in the pursuit of your work, and because some lawyers have actually done unlawful things? In your case wearing the camera would be merely an inconvenience rather than a hindrance. Suggest trying to put yourselves in the shoes of a police officer who faces potential dangerous situations every time he puts on the uniform. Ed you can add one more duty policeman are going to have in the future: not abusing the citizenry because they think they can get away with it. Any conservative worthy of the name would understand that preventing heavily armed agents of the state from abusing citizens is at least as important as apprehending suspects. What is wrong with you? They don't even have to "carry" the camera any more than they have to carry their badge or name tag. There is simply no reasonable way to be against wearing these tiny wearable body cameras unless you're afraid of how much abuse of power these cameras will reveal. How thick can you be anyway? The evidence from departments who employ them is staggering. I'm afraid your position here that policemen would be endangering themselves because they have to carry something stuck to their chest is so ludicrous that you have shown yourself to debating in bad faith. I can draw no other conclusion then that you are reflexively against the cameras because you don't want the cops having to be scrutinised when they're acting excessively aggressive, something it is fair to say you know they do often. thebin, why can't you just give your opinion without assigning motives to someone who has a different opinion?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 23, 2014 19:28:31 GMT -5
Sorry about the triple link posted above. But Ed, are you aware of how small body cams are? "SFPD will be using the same system as BART, the Axon Flex by Taser International. The camera is light enough to clip to the bill of a cap or a shirt lapel." How does a cigar size pen camera affect an officer in a physical confrontation? It's not like the officer is carrying around a Sony Betacam!! Thanks for that information. I researched it and found the Axon Flex is a different shape but about the same size and weight as my Galaxy 4 Mini. I wouldn't want it attached to the bill of my cap but it doesn't appear it would cause any burden to a police officer if buttoned to his jacket, for instance. So------- I've been converted and don't have any serious objection to their use. Mea Culpa.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,322
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 23, 2014 19:42:05 GMT -5
Sorry about the triple link posted above. But Ed, are you aware of how small body cams are? "SFPD will be using the same system as BART, the Axon Flex by Taser International. The camera is light enough to clip to the bill of a cap or a shirt lapel." How does a cigar size pen camera affect an officer in a physical confrontation? It's not like the officer is carrying around a Sony Betacam!! Thanks for that information. I researched it and found the Axon Flex is a different shape but about the same size and weight as my Galaxy 4 Mini. I wouldn't want it attached to the bill of my cap but it doesn't appear it would cause any burden to a police officer if buttoned to his jacket, for instance. So------- I've been converted and don't have any serious objection to their use. Mea Culpa. Ed, don't do that. This is HoyaTalk. Just keep fighting. Are you telling me that you were provided with additional information through discussion and, having read and processed that information, you reevaluated your original position? What is wrong with you? Don't you know you're supposed to skip the additional information altogether? Jeez. Some people...
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 24, 2014 7:57:42 GMT -5
Tas, sorry I broke board rules. I'll try not to let it happen again.
|
|
nathanhm
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by nathanhm on Aug 24, 2014 7:59:27 GMT -5
Any cops that are against wearing cameras should surrender their badges and guns. Almost every jurisdiction that has implemented required cameras has seen complaints against officers drop and also seen violence against officers drop. Everyone behaves better when they are being filmed. If these cops believe they are being unfairly condemned for their actions, then the camera should exonerate them. Nathan, that first statement is a bit strong IMO. Ask a public school teacher if they would allow a camera in their classroom. There are pros and cons for certain. Especially if certain segments of recorded video can be disallowed in a court of law. Context is important. I do agree that early studies suggest that it's a good thing for everyone. But I'm one of the few Hoyas, apparently, that isn't an attorney. I'd be interested to hear from one more knowledgeable about how those videos are presented. Is it piece by piece or all or nothing? I assume it's not all or nothing which could make it a bit murkier. If someone don't want to be transparent in a job where they are given permission to be above the law in order to enforce the law they need to find another line of work. So yes I stand by my statement any cop not interested in being filmed needs to hand in his/her gun and badge.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,330
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 29, 2014 8:39:10 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 25, 2014 6:50:36 GMT -5
Regardless of your views on the Grand Jury decision, this reaction is not acceptable.
At least four local businesses who might employ people have been destroyed.
|
|