TexasCHLforum.com

In the wake of the ongoing events in Baltimore, the Justice Department Friday is announcing a $20 million body-worn camera pilot program for law enforcement agencies.

“This body-worn camera pilot program is a vital part of the Justice Department’s comprehensive efforts to equip law enforcement agencies throughout the country with the tools, support, and training they need to tackle the 21st century challenges we face,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Friday.

“Body-worn cameras hold tremendous promise for enhancing transparency, promoting accountability, and advancing public safety for law enforcement officers and the communities they serve,” she added.

The Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Pilot Partnership Program is part of President Obama’s $75 million proposal to purchase 50,000 body-worn cameras for law enforcement over three years. Friday’s announced program will include $17 million in competitive grants for body-worn cameras, $2 million for training, and $1 million to look at “best practices.”

Sharpton said, “we need the Justice Department to step in and take over policing in this country. In the 20th century, they had to fight states’ rights in — to get the right to vote. We’re going to have to fight states’ rights in terms of closing down police cases.”

A-R wrote:Perspective

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) program provides up to 50 percent matching funds for agencies looking to purchase soft and tactical body armor for their officers. Established in 1998 by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, BVP is part of the U.S. Department of Justice initiative to provide critical resources to state and local law enforcement. Since 1999, over 13,000 jurisdictions have participated in the BVP Program, with $277 million in federal funds committed to support the purchase of an estimated 800,000 vests. Register your agency today!

Step 1 - Register
Register your agency by going to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bvpbasi/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. On the left navigation bar, click on “Getting Started”. Complete an online application detailing the total number, type and projected costs for the vests you are applying for. Wait for approval of your funds. The BVP makes funding decisions immediately after the open enrollment period. Applicants are notified by email regarding their fund awards.

Step 2 - Purchase Your Vest/s
Purchase the vest(s) needed by your agency. Only concealable and tactical body armor vests, that are certified to the NIJ Standard-0101.06 will qualify for BVP funding. Also all agencies will have to certify during the application process, that they have a “written” mandatory wear policy.

Step 3 - Retrieve Reimbursement
After you have purchased your vests, complete an online receiving report located at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bvpbasi/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, and request payment for reimbursement.

To learn more about the BVP Program please click here

Applications for FY15 BVP funding will be accepted through 6:00 PM ET, Tuesday, May 13, 2015.

A-R wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Good for you. I'm sure the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division's top priority is producing proof that satisfies your biased mind within your arbitrary timeframe that they were in fact already investigating Slager. They'll produce all the evidence they've collected if /when this goes to trial - same as every other case.

And thats the problem. Without the video nothing would have been done and both these guys would have gotten off scott free.

And again, there is no cause to suspend an officer until you have probable cause to believe they have violated policy or broken the law.

Lying in your report about attempting CPR is not cause to suspend them? is that the standard you want the public to expect from the police? You're digging a hole thats mighty deep.

Mighty petty gripes mean that call for DOJ oversight nationally is growing.

You're rehashing the same argument. There is no verifiable way for you to claim "nothing would've been done" without the video. Basically a false dilemma logical fallacy with a bit of correlative fallacy thrown in.

"Lying on your report about CPR" ... do you not understand that you can't take action against someone based in information you don't yet know? How between 9:30 Saturday and the release of the video on Monday was anyone supposed to KNOW that they didn't perform CPR? Geez, your standard is that unless an investigator is omniscient then they're investigation is bogus and only video can show the truth.

Investigations TAKE TIME. Deal with it. Get over it. Move on. The video helped immensely to speed up the process (as I've said repeatedly) but without the video the truth would've been revealed in due time.

Try some decaf

MechAg94 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:A-R, I too have enjoyed and appreciate the debate. Please don't think I think the officers or departments want to buy "toys" vs body cams. I do believe some things are cooler than others and human nature leads us to the cool and exciting. I also think the budget argument and lack of data storage are just an excuses.

How do the departments handle dash cam videos now? I know of some that automatically upload when the car arrives at the station to the departments server or cloud. Once uploaded it is kept for a period of time. Then it is written over after thirty, sixty, ninety etc days ( not sure how long). If they need the video, they can go in and save the part of it they need and process it as evidence with their chain of custody procedures.

Complaining it isn't feasible due to budget constraints and data storage issues is just a red herring being thrown out there by cops that don't want the cameras on them as they don't want the videos used against them. I think the video will corroborate their story and vindicate them more often than hurt them. I believe cops do much more right than they do bad.

One final argument, they are already doing what they say they can't to do. They have dash cams. For example, Boerne PD has an MRAP. The money they spend on upkeep and maintenance of that piece of military equipment that I am not aware of them using once would fund the body cams for the entire department.

Again, I encourage you to contact your county auditor or city treasurer and request a copy of their budgets. You'll be surprised how you're money is being spent. I can share my FOIA request with you if you would like.

Here's another example of priorities that I've mentioned. Kendall County has spent several million dollars buying land for wilderness parks that get little use. That would find lots of body cameras, data storage and cool equipment.

I would bet it is not really the LEO's that will complain about budgets at least in major cities. I bet the City of Houston could afford them just fine, but the politicians might have to cut a pet project or two to pay for it. However, there are smaller and poorer counties and cities where lower ranking cops get paid very little already. I am not sure who will pay additional costs in places like that.

Best first step might be for DPS to try it out and work out how best to implement and maintain the system.

A-R wrote:Just found this report, and obviously have not read it all, but the below quote is illustrative:

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resource ... 246869.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although the initial costs of purchasing the cameras can be steep, many police executives said that data storage is the most expensive aspect of a body-worn camera program . “Data storage costs can be crippling,” said Chief Aden of Greenville . Captain Thomas Roberts of Las Vegas agreed . “Storing videos over the long term is an ongoing, extreme cost that agencies have to anticipate,” said Roberts .

nightmare69 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

A-R wrote:The appropriate distance away from a police investigation is far enough that your presence does not create a dangerous distraction.

Not disputing that police need space to work. Again though, I have had seen zero videos where someone filming caused a dangerous situation. I have seen lots where LEOs have decided to engage people filming them. To my knowledge there is also zero proof (anecdotal or on the record) that someone filming a cop has caused a dangerous distraction that caused an incident.

I will concede that the majority of people who make a habit out of filming the police are children. If LEOs were smart they would treat them as such and ignore them. As soon as people quit getting that "gotcha" moment from LEO, I imagine they will find a new hobby.

On the topic of body cameras, the real data shows that when cops wear body cameras EVERYONE (including them) behaves better.

http://www.policefoundation.org/content ... -use-force" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The findings suggest more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force compared to control-conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens’ complaints in the 12-months prior to the experiment."

I hope TX passes some sort of bill to require body cameras.

You prepared to foot the bill? Many small departments cannot afford the cost and upkeep of body cams. I've personally gone through 3 shoulder mics in less than a year. I would love to have a body cam but my dept and many others simply cannot afford them.

I'm not attacking anyone and I know no one is going to limit me to a revolver. We at the university will never get a MRAP or full autos, we may one day however have everything that Swat has. Shields and breaching tools are something we are looking into getting.

A-R wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I agree it would be bad if they have to activate them before an interaction. However, most that I am aware of operate like a dash can. They run continuously in a loop. The officer would have to turn it off if they didn't want it to be on. (Thinking lunch and bathroom breaks here.)

I would be interested to learn more about there operation when I get a chance to do some further research.

I really think more good would come from using them for both the officers and the citizens than bad.

Most dash cams I believe must be activated. Some are activated every time the driver door opens, some every time lights & sirens are activated, some when vehicle reaches a certain speed, some must be manually activated.

The continuous loop idea is interesting, but again opens the same Pandora's box if an incident occurs when the camera was manually shut off - not to mention the enormous data storage requirements.

A-R wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

A-R wrote:THIS

There are still officers in small departments who are not issued BODY ARMOR! Let's fix that problem before we start throwing money at body cameras.

I too think all officers should have armor available. I've offered to put on a fundraiser to help get it for our deputies that do not have it. My offer hasn't been accepted yet and the initial feedback was that the ones that really want it and would wear it, especially during the summer, already have it. That's also one reason it wasn't budgeted. I suspect there are other things that have been purchased instead of body armor that would not have taken priority if all officers were committed to wearing it.

Have you offered such? If so, what was the feedback you received? Have you looked at the budget to see what has been purchased instead of body armor?

Body armor should be a mandatory part of the daily patrol uniform. I'll just leave it at that. As for budgets ... way above my pay grade. My original point was how are we all going to pay for body cameras (and storage and the rest of the expenses that come with body cams) when many departments can't even afford the far more fundamental necessity of body armor.