5 ms·

The scary part is: “The Virginia Beach Police Department immediately began investigating this incident based on the officer’s self-reported Use of Force Report

The scary part is: “The Virginia Beach Police Department immediately began investigating this incident based on the officer’s self-reported Use of Force Report and video captured from the officer’s TASER camera submitted the night of the incident. The department was previously unaware of the citizens recorded video until TODAY” [1]. (note the 'incident' happened in January). Police brutality will only stop when all officers are forced to wear head-mounted camera, 24x7. No dash-cam, taser-cam; Google Glass-like-cam, recording everything they say or do. In the meantime, the only solution is for citizens to do what the young woman rightly did: try to record - and hope evidence is not tempered with. [1] https://www.facebook.com/VirginiaBeachPD https://www.facebook.com/VirginiaBeachPD

rmxt 12y ago
Note: I believe that calling it a "TASER camera" is simply using the name brand of the device. It's not a camera literally mounted on a electrical weapon, but rather a body mounted camera made by the company TASER. Say what you will about uninformed writers repeating catch phrases verbatim without understanding their meaning, or fat public contracts consistently going to the same vendors. Frankly, I'd rather have the body mounted cameras made by a company that doesn't also make weapons... seems like all too cozy a situation between the methods of force (weapons) and the tools used to keep that force in check (body mounted cameras and video storage and retrieval systems).
- guiambros 12y ago
  Indeed: https://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video https://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video It seems pretty good, in fact. Very much in line with what was suggested above.
higherpurpose 12y ago
I hope the smartphone industry will eventually go on a trend of making the cameras with bigger and bigger zoom capabilities. That should make it much easier (and safer) for other people to film from a distance what's going on - even from their own homes, at high quality.
angersock 12y ago
Asking cops to become full-time streaming surveillance cameras is also not the right answer. Surveillance state++. There's got to be some reasonable legal restriction to be placed on officers that prevents their use of unnecessary force.
- patcon 12y ago
  Respectfully disagree. I'm personally entirely comfortable with the authorized force-wielding parties in my society also being localized units of high surveillance. This does not greatly affect my privacy, but rather my moments where I am least concerned with privacy (ie. the interactions of maximum likeliness for me to get legally injured or have my longterm rights revoked)
  - angersock 12y ago
    So, with the infrastructure we have in place, the idea of "localized" high surveillance is one map-reduce job away from being a joke. There won't be such a thing as "oh, this is the video database just for your local officers and nobody else". The data is going to be mined by other companies, used for other purposes--basically, all kinds of shit that is currently infeasible only because of the overall lack of installed mobile cameras that are dependable (mobile could've gone this way, but didn't). Also, as far as longterm-rights being revoked, this is a step down the road towards that revocation. Lastly, the big issue here is that, while you might be comfortable ceding your rights here, it doesn't just impact you: anybody else in camera frame is having their privacy violated. I don't care that you are willing to cede your rights, but don't go support something that'll harm others.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      Localized, as in it only monitors the direct vicinity of officers. Something that doesn't expand exponentially more than manpower.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    I'm all for it but the police force should not be the recording agency. Their cameras tend to malfunction when you need them most.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

rmxt 12y ago

Note: I believe that calling it a "TASER camera" is simply using the name brand of the device. It's not a camera literally mounted on a electrical weapon, but rather a body mounted camera made by the company TASER. Say what you will about uninformed writers repeating catch phrases verbatim without understanding their meaning, or fat public contracts consistently going to the same vendors. Frankly, I'd rather have the body mounted cameras made by a company that doesn't also make weapons... seems like all too cozy a situation between the methods of force (weapons) and the tools used to keep that force in check (body mounted cameras and video storage and retrieval systems).

guiambros 12y ago
Indeed: https://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video https://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video It seems pretty good, in fact. Very much in line with what was suggested above.

higherpurpose 12y ago

I hope the smartphone industry will eventually go on a trend of making the cameras with bigger and bigger zoom capabilities. That should make it much easier (and safer) for other people to film from a distance what's going on - even from their own homes, at high quality.

angersock 12y ago

Asking cops to become full-time streaming surveillance cameras is also not the right answer. Surveillance state++. There's got to be some reasonable legal restriction to be placed on officers that prevents their use of unnecessary force.

patcon 12y ago
Respectfully disagree. I'm personally entirely comfortable with the authorized force-wielding parties in my society also being localized units of high surveillance. This does not greatly affect my privacy, but rather my moments where I am least concerned with privacy (ie. the interactions of maximum likeliness for me to get legally injured or have my longterm rights revoked)
- angersock 12y ago
  So, with the infrastructure we have in place, the idea of "localized" high surveillance is one map-reduce job away from being a joke. There won't be such a thing as "oh, this is the video database just for your local officers and nobody else". The data is going to be mined by other companies, used for other purposes--basically, all kinds of shit that is currently infeasible only because of the overall lack of installed mobile cameras that are dependable (mobile could've gone this way, but didn't). Also, as far as longterm-rights being revoked, this is a step down the road towards that revocation. Lastly, the big issue here is that, while you might be comfortable ceding your rights here, it doesn't just impact you: anybody else in camera frame is having their privacy violated. I don't care that you are willing to cede your rights, but don't go support something that'll harm others.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Localized, as in it only monitors the direct vicinity of officers. Something that doesn't expand exponentially more than manpower.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  I'm all for it but the police force should not be the recording agency. Their cameras tend to malfunction when you need them most.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]