SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Associated Press reports that despite the rapid adoption of body cameras in major cities, policies do not typically require mandatory use of body cameras during uniformed "off-duty" side jobs:
When police officers in America's cities put on their uniforms and grab their weapons before moonlighting in security jobs at nightclubs, hospitals, and ballparks, there's one piece of equipment they often leave behind - their body camera. That's because most police agencies that make the cameras mandatory for patrol shifts don't require or won't allow body cameras for off-duty officers even if they're working in uniform, leaving a hole in policies designed to increase oversight and restore confidence in law enforcement.
Police departments contend that they have only a limited number of body cameras or that there are too many logistical hurdles and costs involved. But that argument doesn't sit well with those who say it shouldn't matter whether an officer is on patrol or moonlighting at a shopping mall. "As long as they have real bullets, they need to have the body cameras," said John Barnett, a civil rights leader in Charlotte, North Carolina, where shootings involving police have put use of the cameras under scrutiny.
An Associated Press survey of the 20 biggest U.S. cities found that nearly all have officers wearing or testing body cameras, but that only five - Houston; San Antonio; San Francisco; Fort Worth, Texas; and San Jose, California - have rules requiring them for uniformed officers working outside their regular hours.
Of course, even mandatory body camera policies are not perfect:
Houston's new Chief of Police Art Acevedo pledged to make some changes to the department's body-camera program after a KHOU investigation revealed it has fallen short of its promises. [...] "I want to make it very clear to our men and women that if they have a critical incident and they don't have that thing on, and without excuse or justification, they're going to have some significant consequences," Acevedo said.
That warning comes after KHOU 11 Investigates discovered several problems in the early months of HPD's body-camera program. The Harris County District Attorney's office identified more than 700 cases with missing or unaccounted body-camera video.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NewNic on Tuesday June 13 2017, @09:57PM (6 children)
The real issue is not that police are not wearing their body cams, it's that they are being paid to wear their uniforms and use the rights they have as police officers by a private party. The opportunities for corruption are blindingly obvious.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @11:02PM (2 children)
RTFA
I see no corruption here. I see a vaguely worded article that does not make a single distinction as to what type of uniform they are talking about in a given sentence. Security guards do not wear police uniforms, just knock offs to fool the gullible. These would not be "police officers in uniform" while being paid as security guards. And as far as I know, no law requires security guards to wear body cams.
By law, they can not. Private security does NOT have police powers. They have power only by proxy of you being on the property they're paid to guard. They can have you arrested for trespassing or vandalizing if that's what you're doing and that's about it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday June 13 2017, @11:42PM
http://www.americanguardservices.com/security-services/off-duty-police-officers/
Is this corruption? No, not in and of itself. A lot of times if the private party doesn't have sufficient security the PD has to respond and the taxpayers pay for it, why not let them hire some off-duty cops ahead of time and save the taxpayers money? Makes perfect sense there.
The problem, though, is it really does create a tremendous amount of space for corruption to happen. It's not corrupt, in and of itself, but it seems to invite corruption. Two people call the PD, one has off-duty PD guards on the scene, the other one has basic security guards, you don't think the responding units are going to behave differently? And even if there's no difference at all, no one is going to believe it, which means this contributes to the appearance of corruption, even should there be no substance thereof.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday June 13 2017, @11:43PM
All your false assertions corrected in one web page:
https://thinkprogress.org/the-incredible-power-of-off-duty-cops-d0d3435aba3f [thinkprogress.org]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday June 14 2017, @12:40AM
My problem is not corruption, but confusion.
Either you are acting as a police officer in the line of duty, complete with uniform, camera, legal obligation and paperwork, OR you are a private security guy.
You probably shouldn't use a service weapon for a private job, AND you definitely should not impersonate an officer if you are being paid by a private entity. The cop demands (and often deserves) some respect, while the private bodyguard can be told to go fuck himself.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday June 14 2017, @09:16AM (1 child)
Second that. I'm amazed this is even lega... oh wait, it's America.
A cop should have ONE boss - the taxpayer - anything else is a conflict of interest at best. If wages are so poor that police are forced to moonlight, then that's a separate scandal.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday June 14 2017, @03:25PM
Police, poorly paid? Not in California. In general, with overtime, Police have a very generous income.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory