SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
David Kravets writes that US Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) says police departments nationwide should require their officers to wear body cameras in order to qualify for the hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding they receive each year. "Everywhere I go, people now have cameras," said McCaskill during a question-and-answer session with voters in her home state of Missouri. "And police officers are now at a disadvantage because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of the encounter. And it gives the impression that the police officer has overreacted when they haven't."
Only a small number of US police departments have outfitted their officers with body cameras, including forces in Fresno, California; Oakland; Rialto, California; Pittsburgh; Salt Lake City; and Cincinnati. A recent study with the Rialto Police Department showed that use-of-force incidents and citizen complaints have been dramatically curtailed since the department began wearing body cams [PDF].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DrMag on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:40PM
"Police officers are now at a disadvantage because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of the encounter. And it gives the impression that the police officer has overreacted when they haven't."
A recent study with the Rialto Police Department showed that use-of-force incidents and citizen complaints have been dramatically curtailed since the department began wearing body cams.
One of these things is not like the other... If it's true that police violence doesn't stem from overreaction, why the drop in use of force? If the Senator's statement is true, then the body-cam has the effect of making officers hesitant to do (and probably less effective in doing) their job for fear of public backlash from misinterpretation. If the statement is false, then the people have every right to be angry right now.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:43PM
Possibly because members of the public are (on average) less likely to be violent in the first place when they realise everything's being recorded.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by DrMag on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:07PM
That's a fair point, and does reveal my false dichotomy. However, I do suspect that those who are most likely to be subjugated to violence by police are among the less likely to be aware that the cameras are present. The police, on the other hand, will be most likely to be aware as the cameras are still a new and uncomfortable thing for them.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:51PM
> If it's true that police violence doesn't stem from overreaction, why the drop in use of force?
I am expecting a "regression to the mean" effect here.
Lets see how much has changed at the end of 5 years instead of just the first year.