Results of having LEOs carry cameras..

[cb1000rider]

I'm a big proponent of automatic cameras in use for traffic stops and general use by law enforcement. I think they protect good cops, are bad news for bad cops, and create an unbiased balance for the general public.
Part of it comes from personal experience with a very low minority of LEOs that had a poor interaction with me and saw the facts as complete opposite as I did. This can get you in a lot of trouble when you're young and poor.

Here is an interesting article on the impact of having police officers in California use not only dashcams, but wearable cameras that document the entire public / LEO encounter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/busin ... d=all&_r=1&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If this is "liberal" media junk, forgive me, I really don't know if the NYtimes is liberal or conservative, and I don't really care in this circumstance as I think the results are striking.
Partial results:

1) 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against officers, compared with the 12 months before the study, to 3 from 24.
2) 60% reduction in use of force by officers that are recorded.

“There are many police officers who’ve had a cloud fall over them because of an unfounded accusation of abuse,” he said. “Now police officers won’t have to worry so much about that kind of thing.”

I hope most modern policing moves this way. It'll go along way to restore public trust and protect good officers..

[chuck j]

You dont know if the New York times is liberal ??? Might want to do some research ?

[Fangs]

I had a high school friend who was illegally searched by the police once. 3 cop cars all facing his vehicle. The PD "lost" all 3 videos.

I don't see how it'll be any harder to lose the video from these cameras unless it's required for a charge.

[gigag04]

We didn't have access to delete the files and the ceras cut on automatically with the overhead lights.

[Jumping Frog]

There was an interesting discussion of this study in the Force Science newsletter.

From the study results, it seems like a no-brainer that all police forces should consider using this technology. It results in better outcomes for both the police and the public.

I can't cut/paste from my emailed newsletter (copyright issues) and it is not old enough yet to appear in their archived articles.

BTW, if you have read any of the Force Science Institute's material, it is very interesting stuff. Predominantly focused on how to understand force within a police environment, but there are many applications that spill over into anyone interested in self defense.

If you've heard about Tueller distance, that is like kindergarten compared to the various reaction time studies they have published.

For example, a previous newsletter looked at Important new reaction-time study addresses what’s “reasonable” in armed-suspect encounters

A couple of introductory sentences:

You are confronting an armed suspect, no cover available. He faces you, with his gun at his side, pointed at the ground. Your gun is aimed at him and you’re ready to shoot. He ignores your commands to drop his weapon.

Are you justified in pulling the trigger before he makes any move to point his gun at you?

According to conclusions reached by researchers in a unique new reaction-time study, your preemptively shooting under such circumstances may well be considered reasonable by the standards of Graham v. Connor.

If the offender suddenly points his gun in your direction, you are highly unlikely to get a shot off to defend yourself before he shoots, the researchers documented. Even under ideal circumstances, you probably can fire no faster than simultaneously with the attacker.

[cb1000rider]

You dont know if the New York times is liberal ??? Might want to do some research ?

Or read the New York times? Sorry, I don't keep a liberal / conservative media score unless I frequent that particular media outlet. I don't typically read the NY Times. I just wanted you to know that I didn't check the reputation of the paper before posting. I found the article compelling enough to ignore the reputation of the paper.

[texanjoker]

I worked for 2 decades w/o a camera just fine. I did carry a personal tape recorder which was great for a complaint or confession. I now have a body camera. It is fine, but took some getting used to. Wearing one doesn't effect my work as I still work the same and have no fear of a video. I do find the camera uncomfortable and large. There are smaller ones out there. We cannot delete the video.

[cb1000rider]

For example, a previous newsletter looked at Important new reaction-time study addresses what’s “reasonable” in armed-suspect encounters

I had a self-defense instructor teach the same thing, but in relation to knives. He showed us, in class, that someone who had a knife and was within 20 feet could get to you, certainly faster than you could get to a holstered firearm. And in most cases, faster than you could react with a firearm in you hand facing down.

As a civilian, I never want to be in front of that jury explaining why I shot someone who "had" a knife out and was in range... But I understand why LEOs choose to shoot in many of these circumstances. If you're not aware of that .5 second reaction time thing, the media can make a big deal about it.

I had a high school friend who was illegally searched by the police once. 3 cop cars all facing his vehicle. The PD "lost" all 3 videos.

PDs should not give individual officers access to the recordings. Doing so is bad policy. IF they haven't figured it out yet, they will soon in events like above.


I'm not anti-LEO. I've got two great LEO friends one is a detective and one was an officer for a long time. I am, however, afraid of LEOs and I don't think I'm alone. I'm not afraid of the good ones that have level heads and are here to serve. I'm afraid because I never know what I'm going to end up with when stopped. I'm afraid based on experience. If you guys want to start in on the "don't do anything wrong and you've got nothing to worry about" - I can tell you that unequivocally that's not the case. It should be "don't let the police think you're doing something wrong" and you have nothing to worry about.

If technology like this decreases violence AND improves the relationship between officers and the general public, I want it everywhere... It has an additional benefit of protecting good police from bogus public complaints...

I'll probably see if I can get in on that google-glass beta...

[texanjoker]

One additional thing I have found that with the camera, just like the tape recorder, when I have some citizen screaming at me how they pay my salary, it is my job to do this or that because they saw it on CSI, ect, when I am tired of their rant I just let them know I am recording them and they almost always shut up.

[eureka40]

One additional thing I have found that with the camera, just like the tape recorder, when I have some citizen screaming at me how they pay my salary, it is my job to do this or that because they saw it on CSI, ect, when I am tired of their rant I just let them know I am recording them and they almost always shut up.

That alone would make it worth wearing!!! LOL

[baldeagle]

1) 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against officers, compared with the 12 months before the study, to 3 from 24.

I'd bet money that 90% or better of that reduction was from suspects realizing the video had them dead to rights and their complaint of excessive police force would be easily disproved.

2) 60% reduction in use of force by officers that are recorded.

I'd like to see details of that. It's concerning. If being recorded is making officers hesitate before using force, it could mean more deadly outcomes for them. Hopefully this just means that they're using less force when arresting someone rather than hesitating before firing in a deadly force situation.

[tbrown]

I don't see how it'll be any harder to lose the video from these cameras unless it's required for a charge.

Especially if they're from Clark County, Nevada.

[cb1000rider]

I'd like to see details of that [details on use of force]. It's concerning.

Me too... So I started to look for them.
I'm going to 'fess up here. I know that the conservatives on this forum doesn't trust anything that the NYTimes writes and that's fair. As it turns out, the recording devices and the "data" are all sponsored by the company that makes Tazers. They're trying to sell these recording systems. As such, I can't call the data objective.

In fact, I couldn't find access to the raw data. I did find the original report, but it read like a marketing campaign.

I'm still a firm believer that active recording protects people in the right on both ends of the enforcement stick... I just don't think that the data I quoted here is entirely unbiased.

[esxmarkc]

An there's quite likely a XX% decrease in the amount of citizen stupidity with the cameras rolling.

And face it, we wouldn't have any good material to air on "COPS" without the technology.