The behaviour of US police officers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Babbylonian said:
Yes, all reasonable human temperatures, it does just fine, how shock proof does it really need to be?

I know how bad you want to be right, but you're wrong. Like, extremely wrong. Not only can a camera be tiny, one piece, and easily record a whole shift at a reasonable video resolution, but it would be even easier and cheaper to attach a tiny CCD camera to an external battery/storage held on/in an officer's belt.

Also, and this may shock you right to your core, police officers are already wearing these kinds of cameras.
Click to expand...

I am not fighting, just giving the list of why
:)

Not even mentioning the archival problem.
 
lobosrul5 said:
I have, actually quite a lot. Was kind of a hobby of mine for a while, recording, recompressing, and storing videos. With h.264/AVC standard of video encoding 720p HD video looks pretty good at 2GB/hour, like hardly any noticeable compression artifacts. With the latest and greatest h.265/HEVC thats down to 1.5GB per hour. I got a dashcam for my car a few months, it'll record well over 100 hours before looping back on itself. It was around $200 which is midrange, its good enough that I can read a license plate on playback from probably 30 feet in front of me.
Click to expand...

Cool, I wasn't sure about the 720p
 
Dancing David said:
I am not fighting, just giving the list of why
:)

Not even mentioning the archival problem.
Click to expand...

Dancing David said:
Cool, I wasn't sure about the 720p
Click to expand...


At 2Gb/hr of 720p video, a common 256Gb micro-SD card (available for under $50 at Amazon), will hold over 120 hours of video.

Not seeing any real problem here.

10TB hard drives are cheap, around $300-$350, so active storage is not really that big a problem. 100GB Blu-Ray discs are roughly 5$ each, and high-capacity data tape is a lot cheaper at 30-40 cents per TB for video storage (given a standard data tape capacity of 160TB and cost of $50 -- eg. the Sony SDLT 320), so long-term archival storage isn't really a significant expense either.

Pretty much all of the so-called "technical hurdles" and "expense" objections are nonsense dredged up by police unions and departments to avoid accountability.

ETA: The average police officer works 40 hours a week, same as anyone else. Of a 40 hour week, approximately 30 hours can be expected to be on video (not including paperwork, breaks, etc.). So for long-term archival storage on the most expensive option, BD-XL blu-ray discs, that's roughly $5 for three weeks' worth of video, or $7 a month per officer at the high end, well under $100 per year per officer. Compare that to the average officer's rookie starting salary, which where I live is $75,000 a year. Also compare to the millions paid by PDs every year to fight or settle lawsuits brought against officers for use-of-force complaints and other constitutional rights violations.

Again, it's all smoke and mirrors to avoid accountability.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
I am not fighting, just giving the list of why
:)
Click to expand...
And demonstrating that every problem you list is already solved. As a bonus, they're not solved like "we don't care how much it costs," they're solved like "we can order these things right now with bulk commodity pricing."

Not even mentioning the archival problem.
Click to expand...
What archival problem? Long-term storage is even cheaper per GB than the memory cards that are used in the cameras. Tag every day's output with badge number and date, back up the date regularly, and discard old, unneeded data regularly. Data required to be retained for specific evidentiary purposes would be stored separately.


ETA: As luchog says above.
 
Last edited:
Isn't it actually the case that video, where it exists, on the whole supports the police in disputes? So in the end, cost/benefit tradeoff favors the police.

The problem of course is the cost. With bodycam, sometimes the police will lose. And that is unacceptable. Because without bodycam, it is one word against the other. Police usually win that, too. So better to not have any record and take your chancrs
 
pgwenthold said:
Isn't it actually the case that video, where it exists, on the whole supports the police in disputes? So in the end, cost/benefit tradeoff favors the police.
Click to expand...

Who knows? Where is there a broad analysis of the footage? And then you have cases like Philando Castile where how do you even rate that?
 
pgwenthold said:
Isn't it actually the case that video, where it exists, on the whole supports the police in disputes? So in the end, cost/benefit tradeoff favors the police.

The problem of course is the cost. With bodycam, sometimes the police will lose. And that is unacceptable. Because without bodycam, it is one word against the other. Police usually win that, too. So better to not have any record and take your chancrs
Click to expand...


The problem with that is, even when there is video showing clear wrongdoing by police, the officers involved generally get off scot-free, or with barely a wrist-slap. It's extremely rare that police officers are held accountable for their actions, regardless of the evidence available.
 
luchog said:
The problem with that is, even when there is video showing clear wrongdoing by police, the officers involved generally get off scot-free, or with barely a wrist-slap. It's extremely rare that police officers are held accountable for their actions, regardless of the evidence available.
Click to expand...
The thing is that they can't count on that as time passes. The more incidents documented on video and then publicized, the less likely juries will be to accept lame cop excuses. This outcome is already inevitable given the proliferation of smartphones and cheap CCTV security systems. When police unions resist always-on body cameras, they're trying to delay this inevitability.
 
Babbylonian said:
The thing is that they can't count on that as time passes. The more incidents documented on video and then publicized, the less likely juries will be to accept lame cop excuses. This outcome is already inevitable given the proliferation of smartphones and cheap CCTV security systems. When police unions resist always-on body cameras, they're trying to delay this inevitability.
Click to expand...


That sounds all well and good, but the evidence continues to say otherwise.
 
Babbylonian said:
What archival problem?
Click to expand...

Access to the data by outside requestors, and adding meta data for ease of access, it was another hurdle when the ACLU was trying to get to LAPD's body cam archives.

They were forced to open the archives and immediately stated, 'too many hours' to sort and access requested footage, there has been discussion of trying to crowd source it
 
Dancing David said:
Access to the data by outside requestors, and adding meta data for ease of access, it was another hurdle when the ACLU was trying to get to LAPD's body cam archives.

They were forced to open the archives and immediately stated, 'too many hours' to sort and access requested footage, there has been discussion of trying to crowd source it
Click to expand...
The fact that an organization doesn't bother to properly organize records doesn't mean that it's not possible to properly organize records. If a police department can't manage that, it means there is a need for personnel changes. It doesn't mean police shouldn't be wearing bodycams.

When I started working for the American Red Cross in Portland in 1989, their recordkeeping practices were straight-up shameful, even for the time when paper records were the standard. By the time I left 7 years later, it would have taken no more than an hour or two to train someone to find any patient/blood donor data which was required to be available. In the 21st century, nobody (especially a large police department with significant administrative support) has any ******* excuse to be so sloppy.
 
Dancing David said:
Access to the data by outside requestors, and adding meta data for ease of access, it was another hurdle when the ACLU was trying to get to LAPD's body cam archives.

They were forced to open the archives and immediately stated, 'too many hours' to sort and access requested footage, there has been discussion of trying to crowd source it
Click to expand...

Babbylonian said:
The fact that an organization doesn't bother to properly organize records doesn't mean that it's not possible to properly organize records. If a police department can't manage that, it means there is a need for personnel changes. It doesn't mean police shouldn't be wearing bodycams.
(snippage)
In the 21st century, nobody (especially a large police department with significant administrative support) has any ******* excuse to be so sloppy.
Click to expand...


The LAPD's video dump, like the Seattle PD's attempt to do the same, is nothing but a delaying tactic. And it's very, very old tactic that existed long before electronic media existed.

Someone demands records as part of a court case or outside accountability program, the PD or other organization then just dumps a warehouse full of unorganized data on them. Boxes and boxes of random crap with the data they want supposedly hidden in there somewhere. Whether it's video or paper the effect is the same, the targets get so bogged down they either have to deal with mountains of work they don't have the personnel to handle, or they just give up. In either case, the result is the same, accountability attempts are stymied and rendered ineffective.

There is no reason that someone should not be able to come up to the department, provide some combination of date, time, and officer name, and get a video that contains the incident in question. All that's needed is a database program that catalogs it all, with a convenient interface. I have such a database program on my mobile, for organizing my DVD/Blu-Ray collection. It cost me $12.
 
ponderingturtle said:
"The publication reports that Irby’s husband rammed his car into the back of his wife’s vehicle after the hearing, citing police documents. Police said Irby called local authorities shortly after the incident “uncontrollably crying and advised that she was in fear for her life.”

Police reportedly arrested Irby’s husband on charges of aggravated battery after the incident. According to HuffPost, Irby had previously received protective orders against her husband.

Irby’s husband was reportedly released from police custody a day after his arrest. He was later reportedly ordered by a judge turn over the firearms in his possession as a condition of his pretrial release.

That’s when Irby reportedly went to her husband’s home to retrieve his firearms and hand them over to police because she said “he wasn’t going to turn them in.” But once Irby arrived at the local Lakeland Police Department, she was arrested for the act after police said she admitted to burglary and theft."


https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/449877-woman-who-turned-over-husbands-guns-to-police-after-saying-she

Well that shows who the police find more sympathetic, the domestic abuser of course.
Click to expand...
No, it shows that the police recognize that the alleged abuser still has rights and those rights were violated. It was up to her husband to turn in his guns. It was not up to her to burglarize his home and steal his property.
 
luchog said:
The LAPD's video dump, like the Seattle PD's attempt to do the same, is nothing but a delaying tactic. And it's very, very old tactic that existed long before electronic media existed.

Someone demands records as part of a court case or outside accountability program, the PD or other organization then just dumps a warehouse full of unorganized data on them. Boxes and boxes of random crap with the data they want supposedly hidden in there somewhere. Whether it's video or paper the effect is the same, the targets get so bogged down they either have to deal with mountains of work they don't have the personnel to handle, or they just give up. In either case, the result is the same, accountability attempts are stymied and rendered ineffective.
Click to expand...

Alex Jones's legal team just recently attempted this very tactic against the Sandy Hook parents who are suing him; they attempted to overwhelm plaintiffs' counsel with a huge dump of raw email metadata. In Jones's case, the tactic hilariously backfired when child pornography was found with the email dump.
 
What Mayor Pete Couldn’t Fix About the South Bend Cops
The fatal shooting that derailed Pete Buttigieg’s campaign this week has a 7-year backstory.
Click to expand...

BTW, I learned from this article that not only was the body cam turned off, but so was the dash cam in the police cruiser. This guy really didn't want his actions to be caught on camera. He also has a "history".

The shooting has exposed a lingering and bitter conflict between South Bend’s black community and a predominantly white police department—a department that has grown only whiter since Buttigieg became mayor in 2012. As mayor, Buttigieg, who has pledged transparency and professionalism, sometimes seemed to make matters worse. Three months into his first term, he forced out the city’s first black police chief, who had been accused of illegally recording his officers, some of whom were said to have made racist remarks; since then, there have been a number of controversies with racial overtones—violent confrontations between police and minority residents, and lawsuits by black officers alleging that Buttigieg’s handpicked police chiefs engaged in racially discriminatory behavior. The officers involved in the shooting and its aftermath each have been accused multiple times of using excessive force against black people.
Click to expand...
 
quadraginta said:
Three cops at once, filming themselves unaware with the victim's illegally confiscated camera while plotting to break more laws probably is.
Click to expand...

Pretty assuredly isn't. Three cops and not one of them a "good" cop. That's 100%. I have yet to run into the mythological "good" cop. That is a cop that upholds the law when it comes to fellow officers. No . . . wait! I remember about 15 years ago there was a female cop who blew the whistle on her partner who pulled his gun and held it to a dentist's head over a claimed traffic violation. (The dentist was black.)

Of course, she's no longer a cop even though her partner was convicted. Funny how the union stood up for the convict and not for the "good" cop.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
Three cops at once, filming themselves unaware with the victim's illegally confiscated camera while plotting to break more laws probably is.
Click to expand...

qayak said:
Pretty assuredly isn't. Three cops and not one of them a "good" cop. That's 100%. I have yet to run into the mythological "good" cop. That is a cop that upholds the law when it comes to fellow officers. No . . . wait! I remember about 15 years ago there was a female cop who blew the whistle on her partner who pulled his gun and held it to a dentist's head over a claimed traffic violation. (The dentist was black.)

Of course, she's no longer a cop even though her partner was convicted. Funny how the union stood up for the convict and not for the "good" cop.
Click to expand...

I think he meant it was the accidentally filming themselves part that was unusual.
 
A Florida cop planted meth on random drivers

Wester, who was fired last September, was arrested Wednesday and charged with 52 counts of racketeering, false imprisonment, official misconduct, fabricating evidence and possession of controlled substances, among other charges. He’s accused of indiscriminately targeting innocent drivers and hauling them off to jail after planting meth or marijuana in their vehicles while feigning a “search."

“There is no question that Wester’s crimes were deliberate and that his actions put innocent people in jail,”
Click to expand...

At least 119 cases involving Wester have been dropped, the Tallahassee Democrat reported. In addition to the dropped charges, Circuit Judge Christopher Patterson ordered at least eight inmates released from correctional facilities last fall, as 263 cases remained under review.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/11/florida-cop-meth-drugs-arrests-scandal/
 
lobosrul5 said:
If a cop asks to search your car, always say "no". Of course they can always just say "but I smell pot and search it anyways". But its some small protection.
Click to expand...
In this case, the cop would find what he 'smells', so it's not protection when you are dealing with a corrupt cop.
 
The Greater Fool said:
In this case, the cop would find what he 'smells', so it's not protection when you are dealing with a corrupt cop.
Click to expand...

Bizarrely, the article says he commonly said he smelled pot, but found meth.

Seriously, the county and maybe the state needs to have the absolute **** sued out of them and people lose their jobs over this.

"Wester, who joined the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office in 2016, fell under suspicion last year after a prosecutor noticed inconsistencies in what Wester wrote in his reports and what was captured on his body camera "

2016 is THREE years ago. People were still sitting in jail.
 
lobosrul5 said:
If a cop asks to search your car, always say "no". Of course they can always just say "but I smell pot and search it anyways". But its some small protection.
Click to expand...

If they search without your consent, you can at least challenge the legality of the search and possibly get evidence obtained (or planted) excluded. If you consent to the search, it's legal.

I find it rather strange that, in the US, cops are required to advise you of your 5th amendment rights not to incriminate yourself, but not our 4th amendment protection against illegal searh and seizure. Before they question you, the police have to advise you that "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of Law ...". OTOH, "consent" to search usually goes something like,
"Are there any drugs or weapons in the car?"
"No".
"Mind if I take a look"?
"Okay".
 
The joys of the broad application of qualified immunity when it comes to unreasonable police violence:

https://twitter.com/TimCushing/status/1149199663297376256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1149199663297376256&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231149199663297376256

tl;dr: Appeals Court extends qualified immunity to a cop who shot a child her had ordered to "lie on the ground" when he was trying to shoot the family dog, which was walking away from him.
 
FBI investigating tattooed deputy gangs in Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

There are actual gangs within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

The FBI is investigating a secret society of tattooed deputies in East Los Angeles as well as similar gang-like groups elsewhere within the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, multiple people familiar with the inquiry said.
The federal probe follows allegations of beatings and harassment by members of the Banditos, a group of deputies assigned to the Sheriff's Department's East L.A. station who brand themselves with matching tattoos of a skeleton outfitted with a sombrero, bandolier and pistol. The clique's members are accused by other deputies of using gang-like tactics to recruit young Latino deputies into their fold and retaliating against those who rebuff them.
Click to expand...
In particular, the sources said, agents have been trying to determine whether leaders of the Banditos require or encourage aspiring members to commit criminal acts, such as planting evidence or writing false incident reports, to secure membership in the group.
Click to expand...
And this is not apparently the only one:
The agents also have inquired about other groups known to exist in the department, which has nearly 10,000 deputies and polices large swaths of the sprawling county. They have asked for information about the tattoos and practices of the Spartans and Regulators in the department's Century station, and the Reapers, who operate out of a station in South Los Angeles, according to the sources.
Click to expand...
 
Puppycow said:
FBI investigating tattooed deputy gangs in Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

There are actual gangs within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

And this is not apparently the only one:
Click to expand...


It's been well-known for a long time that police department have had a problem with street gangs (starting mainly with white biker gangs) infiltrating police departments. They started with sending their female associates to get hired on as clerical workers and provide intel on police activity; and have since graduated to sending their younger members to police academies to become officers. There's a huge problem with gang presence in large PDs in particular.
 
"STEBBINS, Alaska — When Nimeron Mike applied to be a city police officer here last New Year’s Eve, he didn’t really expect to get the job.

Mike was a registered sex offender and had served six years behind bars in Alaska jails and prisons. He’d been convicted of assault, domestic violence, vehicle theft, groping a woman, hindering prosecution, reckless driving, drunken driving and choking a woman unconscious in an attempted sexual assault. Among other crimes.

“My record, I thought I had no chance of being a cop,” Mike, 43, said on a recent weekday evening, standing at his doorway in this Bering Strait village of 646 people.

He was wrong."

https://www.propublica.org/article/stebbins-alaska-cops-criminal-records-domestic-violence
 
ponderingturtle said:
Mike was a registered sex offender and had served six years behind bars in Alaska jails and prisons. He’d been convicted of assault, domestic violence, vehicle theft, groping a woman, hindering prosecution, reckless driving, drunken driving and choking a woman unconscious in an attempted sexual assault. Among other crimes.
Click to expand...


Has there ever been a time in American history when these were disqualifying conditions? I would have thought several of those would be job requirements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom