SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the eye-think-we-are-being-watched dept.
A pilot program was scheduled to start last week. But after no officers volunteered, Commissioner William Evans ordered 100 officers to wear the cameras. That prompted the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association to ask a judge to issue an injunction to halt the program until a new agreement can be negotiated.
Union President Patrick Rose testified Tuesday that the city violated its agreement with the union when Evans assigned officers to what was supposed to be an all-volunteer program. Rose acknowledged that he told members not to volunteer for the program before the union had reached an agreement with the city.
[...] Evans said he wants the program to begin next week and believes it's within his authority as police commissioner to order officers to wear the cameras.
No word on whether or not the Commissioner volunteered to wear a camera.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:35PM
The commissioner was convinced of the program because a video of an officer shooting someone showed that the officer had cause. Video can also protect "good" cops from controversy.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:31PM
Not really.
As we have seen from BLM, even after officers are cleared, there are still demand for "justice", whatever that means.
Even a clean officer would be hesitant, as video just gives a thousand opportunities for Monday morning quarterbacking. Not saying that cameras shouldn't be used, but the reticent of officers is perfectly understandable.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:53PM
The police brought this on themselves.
If they had policed their own ranks and removed bad cops we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
But what happens is:
1. there are (or were) a few, and probably very few, bad cops
2. other cops won't report it because:
A. don't want to rock the boat
B. don't want to fink on their partners, friends, etc
C. the culture is to protect a bad cop and cover it up
D. the police union supports the bad cop, and will make trouble for anyone not supporting bad cops
And now that the citizens have the technology to catch them in the act, they:
1. are surprised everyone is against them
2. treat photography as a crime
3. harass anyone filming the police -- and deny constitutional rights, but they have been doing that for a long time
Maybe the police should be working WITH the very community of people they are supposed to protect and serve. Instead they act like an occupying military invasion force, complete with used military gear, and treat the citizens as insurgents.
And they wonder why the citizenry no longer trust them.
They never fail to tell us: if you've done nothing wrong, then you've got nothing to hide
Yet they won't wear police cameras that could prove their innocence when they are doing their job properly. That camera works two ways. It proves the good as well as the bad.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:36PM
That's whole lot of unsupported accusations you got there. Any evidence to back it it up (police don't report corruption in their departments, police actively cover for bad cops, etc,)?
I mean we could extend this that police cams only tell a part of the story, and you really need mass surveillance of everyone to get a full picture.
Any takers then?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:08PM
Oh, there's plenty of evidence to back up claims that police corruption is rampant, that bad cops are protected by... uh, not-bad-but-not-really-good-or-something cops, etc.
Jay Dobyns, Thomas Drake, and Donna Watts are the people who I've read about in-depth and come tio mind immediately. Many, many more such people seem to be out there: Shannon Spalding, Daniel Echeverria, Jonathan Newton, Adrian Schoolcraft, Frank Serpico, Laura Schook, Kristin Bantle, Dave Kleiber, Richard Ceballos, Max Seifert, Pat Burley, Andre Boyer, Kyle Pirog, John Lang, anonymous officers [wnd.com], and "wanted" anonymous officers [thestranger.com]. Ex-cop Christopher Dorner's whole claimed motive for his private war on California cops was regarding institutional police corruption.
At some point, anecdotal evidence piles up to the point where it must be acknowledged lest one risk drowning in it.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:10PM
Have you ever seen a cop get pulled over for speeding without their sirens on? I haven't, despite seeing cops speed while other cops were present. Even little abuses like that make every cop who looks the other way rotten, and that's the tip of the iceberg, the violation of law we all see and yet still don't expect equal enforcement of. Don't kid yourself; the cops are crooks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:20PM
I haven't noticed that the police are particularly more corrupt than the auto industry or any other business you'd care to mention.
I mean if we are going to point the finger blame, there is enough to go around. To you too I suspect.
What I have noticed is that corruption with the police is more visible especially when emotions are high, which okay, fair enough.
But the percentage of cops doing an excellent job compared to any abuses is at least 1000 to 1, which doesn't exactly support this meme of widespread corruption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:29PM
Yes, you're exactly right. The auto industry murders tens of thousands of people per year who choose to use their products. It's no different from racist cops with no trigger discipline.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:52PM
I haven't noticed that the police are particularly more corrupt than the auto industry or any other business
Police are public servants that have the power to enforce the law. They should be held to a higher standard than businesses.
But the percentage of cops doing an excellent job compared to any abuses is at least 1000 to 1
Do you have a reference for that?
I mean if we are going to point the finger blame, there is enough to go around. To you too I suspect.
So ... because there are people doing bad things, then we should not try to hold police accountable to the public they serve?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @07:17PM
Police are public servants that have the power to enforce the law. They should be held to a higher standard than businesses.
True, but that shouldn't be open license for the perpetually outraged to make any demands with justification. As already pointed out, even when officers are cleared of any wrongdoing, there are still demands for blood. And while they should be held to a higher standard, they are still citizens, afforded all the protections as such. Too many seem to forget that.
Do you have a reference for that?
Yes:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394249/dojs-policing-statistics-dont-lie-ian-tuttle [nationalreview.com]
Now do you?
So ... because there are people doing bad things, then we should not try to hold police accountable to the public they serve?
Nice way to miss the point.
The issue was concerning police cameras where it was stated Not saying that cameras shouldn't be used
Did you get that?
But with the very selective outrage against police actions (did you have the same contempt during Ruby Ridge), I'd rather walk than be subjected to the idiocy currently on display.
And apparently several feel the same way:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96570&page=1 [go.com]
But I'm certain you'd be more than happy to join to at least get some good people in there.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Zinho on Thursday September 08 2016, @10:03PM
...the percentage of cops doing an excellent job compared to any abuses is at least 1000 to 1, which doesn't exactly support this meme of widespread corruption.
Do you have a reference for that?
Yes:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394249/dojs-policing-statistics-dont-lie-ian-tuttle [nationalreview.com]
Now do you?
That source doesn't support you on that:
In raw numbers, of 1.45 million pedestrians stopped, only about 9,900 filed a complaint.
By my math, that's 6.8/1000, or 146:1 excellent job:abuses as a best case. That number only accounts for the people angry/brave/foolish enough to file an official complaint. Elsewhere in the paragraph it says that 24.5% of the pedestrians stopped believed the police had acted improperly; that's 3:1 excellent job:improper action.
Your source isn't exactly giving me warm fuzzies about the high quality of police-civilian interaction.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @01:30AM
Street stops present more disparate data: Seventy-seven percent of whites stopped said police behaved properly, while only 38 percent of blacks did. However, the BJS notes that the number of responses to the question in its sample was so small that those figures must be “interpret[ed] with caution,” so clearly additional information is needed. More reliable are figures about street-stop rates.
If you are going to quote, quote the whole source otherwise you look like an idiot.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Friday September 09 2016, @02:46AM
That line was 5 paragraphs away; I'm not in the habit of quoting half an article to correct poor presentation on the part of the author.
Furthermore, the author seems confident in the rest of the street stop data (as indicated by the last line you quoted). I see no indication that the author was questioning the validity of the his previous numbers. The large separation between the two indicates that he intended to divorce the conclusions of one paragraph from the uncertainties of the other. This is either a legitimate analysis and I was right to not quote the second paragraph, or the author was intentionally lying with statistics in an article titled "statistics don't lie".
Oh, the irony!
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:50PM
The thin blue line, [policeone.com] apparently you've never heard of it.
I find it interesting that the author of the article I linked spends so much energy refuting the negative interpretation of that term after stating at the beginning that his own academy instructor was hesitant to use it in class because of the cultural baggage of the term.
It's been 45 years since Frank Serpico [wikipedia.org] was (allegedly?) set up by his squad mates to get murdered by a drug dealer for trying to report on corruption in the ranks. In part due to his courage and testimony at the Knapp commission [wikipedia.org] the world has changed a lot since then, for the better. I would be naive, however, to believe that no remnants of that former culture remained.
More links:
The official line regarding the "blue wall of silence" [policechiefmagazine.org]
The reality beat cops have to live with [oathkeepers.org]
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:57PM
I am with you on this. Just because I don't want to wear one doesn't mean I have something to hide. I think pilots are warranted here. Let's see how the technology can be used to everyone's benefit. It also lets everyone get comfortable with their use. I think the commissioner's action is justified in this case. When the union is throwing up a wall on a pilot program, I think he is right to force the issue. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out in the courts.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:43PM
As we have seen from BLM, even after officers are cleared, there are still demand for "justice", whatever that means.
That's because they don't believe the report on the incident. Sadly, they are not without justification there since police departments have been known to provably lie about an incident or simply cover it up.
That doesn't mean they do in every case, but with their credibility in shreds, it will always be suspected without hard evidence. More sadly, since "hard evidence" has in the past turned out not so hard since missing time has been detected in video, even that may be considered suspect by some.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:54PM
The commissioner was convinced of the program because a video of an officer shooting someone showed that the officer had cause. Video can also protect "good" cops from controversy.
If that is his reasoning, he shouldn't be commissioner because he's got no clue how things currently work.
99% of the time cops are protected anyway, even when they are in the wrong. There is no value to any individual officer in having an official record that, at best, is going to produce the same result and at worst might get them in trouble.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:13PM
"serve and protect", remember?
If the cop and the person of interest both know that they are being recorded, exchanges are a lot more likely to be civilized. It helps avoid incidents, rather than have to clean them up.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:09PM
serve and protect - that's a tv tag line but who does it apply to?
not you and I but the ruling class. the cops have no duty to protect you and I; it was 'decided' by courts not too long ago. a cop usually comes by LATER ON to clean up the mess but not to stop problems or prevent problems. and if you are in danger, they have no obligation to help you or protect you. its not their job, no matter what tv shows want to say about it.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:35PM
(a) That's not what the commissioner is reported to have said
(b) I doubt it works that way in practice. The cops who are assholes think they are justified in being assholes, and when you think you are right then you think you've got nothing to hide. As for anyone else being on camera, people who lose their shit in front of a cop aren't thinking long term in the first place. If they even notice the camera they probably won't care.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @06:33AM
Police body cams work to the benefit [policechiefmagazine.org] of the officers [texascjc.org] as well as the public [times-standard.com].