3 ms·

>> We have seen how keeping cameras on police moderates their behaviour. Apparently not in the most recent case in South Carolina where the officer's dash cam

>> We have seen how keeping cameras on police moderates their behaviour. Apparently not in the most recent case in South Carolina where the officer's dash cam was running and didn't stop him from shooting a man eight times in the back, did it? Also, the camera's are there for the cops sake, not for ours. I welcome having body camera's, but I think you'd be surprised at how many times a cop has justifiable means to use lethal force, and doesn't. Sure, it helps us keep tabs on them, but I'm pretty sure the actual reality of what they put up with compared to how these situations are portrayed in the media, are going to be eye opening to a lot of people.

nl 12y ago
Apparently not in the most recent case in South Carolina where the officer's dash cam was running and didn't stop him from shooting a man eight times in the back, did it? Sure, it's no panacea. But in San Diego: Complaints have fallen 40.5% and use of "personal body" force by officers has been reduced by 46.5% and use of pepper spray by 30.5%, according to the report developed by the Police Department for the City Council's Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods Committee.[1] And the ACLU tends to think they are on the balance, positive[2]. I think Brin's argument would be that we've tried policing without cameras, maybe it is worth trying it with lots more cameras. It's worth noting in that case you mentioned above it was mobile phone footage that led to him being charged, not a dash cam[3]. That's an argument for more cameras, controlled by civilians. [1] http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-body-cameras-20150318-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-body-cameras-201... [2] https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-moun... [3] "the video, which was taken by a bystander" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-...
- at-fates-hands 12y ago
  >>It's worth noting in that case you mentioned above it was mobile phone footage that led to him being charged, not a dash cam[3]. I do agree on your points, which are all well made. Do you think he would have been charged had it not been for the civilian video? Or do you think it simply would've taken longer to charge him since they would have to get the video off his dash cam, review it, and then decide whether to take action.
gknoy 12y ago
I am very happy that police will often choose not to use lethal force, even if it would be allowed. The point is, however, that had such a thing happened without cameras, proving it (versus an officer's word, which is often treated as Truth in courts) is very hard. Cameras' purpose is to allow gathering evidence in the (hopefully rare) instances of inexcusable behavior by officers, and to encourage them to do things "by the book" rather than stretching the truth (lying) about what actually happened.

nl 12y ago

Apparently not in the most recent case in South Carolina where the officer's dash cam was running and didn't stop him from shooting a man eight times in the back, did it? Sure, it's no panacea. But in San Diego: Complaints have fallen 40.5% and use of "personal body" force by officers has been reduced by 46.5% and use of pepper spray by 30.5%, according to the report developed by the Police Department for the City Council's Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods Committee.[1] And the ACLU tends to think they are on the balance, positive[2]. I think Brin's argument would be that we've tried policing without cameras, maybe it is worth trying it with lots more cameras. It's worth noting in that case you mentioned above it was mobile phone footage that led to him being charged, not a dash cam[3]. That's an argument for more cameras, controlled by civilians. [1] http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-body-cameras-20150318-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-body-cameras-201... [2] https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-moun... [3] "the video, which was taken by a bystander" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-...

at-fates-hands 12y ago
>>It's worth noting in that case you mentioned above it was mobile phone footage that led to him being charged, not a dash cam[3]. I do agree on your points, which are all well made. Do you think he would have been charged had it not been for the civilian video? Or do you think it simply would've taken longer to charge him since they would have to get the video off his dash cam, review it, and then decide whether to take action.

gknoy 12y ago

I am very happy that police will often choose not to use lethal force, even if it would be allowed. The point is, however, that had such a thing happened without cameras, proving it (versus an officer's word, which is often treated as Truth in courts) is very hard. Cameras' purpose is to allow gathering evidence in the (hopefully rare) instances of inexcusable behavior by officers, and to encourage them to do things "by the book" rather than stretching the truth (lying) about what actually happened.