SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Lily Hay Newman reports that the LAPD has ordered 3,000 Tasers that, when discharged, will automatically activate cameras on officers' uniforms, which will create visual records of incidents at a time of mounting concern about excessive force by U.S. law enforcement officers. The new digital Taser X26P weapons record the date, time and duration of firing, and whether Taser wires actually strike suspects and how long the thousands of volts of electricity pulse through them. “This technology gives a much better picture of what happens in the field,” says Steve Tuttle. The idea of using a Taser discharge as a criterion for activating body cams is promising, especially as more and more police departments adopt body cams and struggle to establish guidelines for when they should be on or off. Police leadership—i.e., chiefs and upper management—is far more supportive of the technology and tends to view body-worn cameras as a tool for increasing accountability and reducing civil liability. On the other hand, the patrol officer culture is concerned that the technology will be an unfair intrusion into their routine activities—for instance, it might invite over-managing minor policy violations. "In addition to these new Taser deployments, we plan to issue a body-worn camera and a Taser device to every officer," says Police Chief Charlie Beck. "It is our goal to make these important tools available to every front line officer over the next few years."
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Sunday January 11 2015, @05:52PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Sunday January 11 2015, @07:03PM
that's not a penalty for the cop but a penalty for society [if we assume the cop was going to tell the truth], because the person likely won't get convicted then.
The cop needs a real penalty that personally affects him, like suspension without pay, then demotion, then firing.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday January 11 2015, @08:00PM
Agreed, you can't automatically assign a lie to an officer just because something (that didn't exist 3 years ago) dies not work.
We are running the risk of REQUIRING the surveillance society to protect against a few bad cops. If that is the offer on the table, I'll trust the jury to control the bad cops every time.
Failure to morandize was totally eliminated in the US simply tossing out any interrogation evidence when officers failed to so so. Camera evidence can be treated similarly.
There are a LOT of people here who rabble rouse here contrary to their own, (and everyone else's) best interests. I do NOT agree to be under constant surveillance just so some people can act like thugs with impunity. Remember that cameras are as much to induce citizens to behave as they are to make cops behave.
Keep insisting every citizen interaction with police has to be recorded and you are lobbying for the total surveillance state.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday January 12 2015, @12:17AM
how does that work? "all cops should wear cameras all the time" is not the same as "cameras should be everywhere all the time". they're not even in the same ballpark. the only time i ever see cops is when they drive past; i don't think i've ever seen a cop walking a beat during my entire life, so police presence isn't really a thing, so i really don't see how you can say the two quoted statements could be the same. if cops actually did walk beats, then sure, cops would act as mobile surveillance cameras, but right now the only time cops leave their vehicles is to harass/murder innocent people and write their quotas of speeding tickets.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday January 12 2015, @07:19AM
If we could trust the cops to tell the truth, the cameras wouldn't be necessary at all.