Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/09/birmingham_police_body_cameras_1.html

The use of body cameras on Birmingham (edit: in Alabama, USA) police has led to a dramatic drop in citizen complaints against officers, as well as a decline in use of force incidents, in the past two months, authorities said. So far, officials said, the presence of the cameras is doing exactly what they hoped. For the months of July and August, use of force incidents dropped 34 percent and citizens' complaints dropped 70 percent.

The use of force incidents refer to those interactions that require the officers to report to their supervisors that they had to use force on a person and which they are required to complete and submit a Response to Resistance report according to departmental policy. This range of actions cover an officer using his or her hands to overcome physical resistance all the way to lethal force. Citizen complains include use of force complaints, rude and discourteous complaints or any actions where a citizen complains about an officer. The complaints specific to use of force totaled four in July and August of 2014, and only one for those same months this year.

"I can't prove how many lives have been saved or how many lawsuits prevented or how many complaints never came about but if we see the litigation drop, then it becomes clear they are having an impact,'' Brewer said. "That's the hardest thing to sell until they see tangible numbers, and we won't be getting those numbers for two to three years."

Good.

Excellent.

Jerks who interact with cops are less likely to start crap when they know they're on camera.
Jerks who are cops are less likely to start crap when they know they're on camera.

Since most crap that goes down with cops happens when one or more of those parties is jerk starting it, of course it's gonna go down.

You don't say?

 Chongara wrote:
Jerks who interact with cops are less likely to start crap when they know they're on camera.
Jerks who are cops are less likely to start crap when they know they're on camera.

Since most crap that goes down with cops happens when one or more of those parties is jerk starting it, of course it's gonna go down.

Exactly. The sooner this gets rolled out everywhere, the better.

This should be mandatory with clear guidance from the department on usage.

Not flipping out when a civilian is using their camera phone is the other half of this.

 Chongara wrote:
Jerks who interact with cops are less likely to start crap when they know they're on camera.
Jerks who are cops are less likely to start crap when they know they're on camera.

Since most crap that goes down with cops happens when one or more of those parties is jerk starting it, of course it's gonna go down.

This. That statistic changes shouldn't be surprising anyone. Body cameras are a good thing, for all parties.

Same results that previous departments have found when they implemented their cameras, what a surprise.

Cameras protect the public as well as the officers wearing them.

 Breotan wrote:
This should be mandatory with clear guidance from the department on usage.

Not flipping out when a civilian is using their camera phone is the other half of this.

See the thing with people bringing out cameras is at that point some jerk has already started crap. Maybe the cop is the one already being a jerk and doesn't want it caught on camera when he wouldn't have started it in the first place if the camera was always on. Maybe the cop is just pissed of because some jerk started crap him and the camera is only so much more on the pile now. Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, or reporting or whatever a camera is once somebody has decided to start being a dick.

 Chongara wrote:
Jerks who interact with cops are less likely to start crap when they know they're on camera.
Jerks who are cops are less likely to start crap when they know they're on camera.

Since most crap that goes down with cops happens when one or more of those parties is jerk starting it, of course it's gonna go down.

Exactly.

Shows how many of those complaints were caused by the jackhole doing the complaining, and now they don't dare when their word against the cop's can be near perfectly tested.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Jerks who interact with cops are less likely to start crap when they know they're on camera.
Jerks who are cops are less likely to start crap when they know they're on camera.

Since most crap that goes down with cops happens when one or more of those parties is jerk starting it, of course it's gonna go down.

Exactly.

Shows how many of those complaints were caused by the jackhole doing the complaining, and now they don't dare when their word against the cop's can be near perfectly tested.

Exactly.

The dropping in use of force shows that police officers were using too much force before, but now that they can easily be held accountable they don't dare when their word against the victim can be near perfectly tested.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Jerks who interact with cops are less likely to start crap when they know they're on camera.
Jerks who are cops are less likely to start crap when they know they're on camera.

Since most crap that goes down with cops happens when one or more of those parties is jerk starting it, of course it's gonna go down.

Exactly.

Shows how many of those complaints were caused by the jackhole doing the complaining, and now they don't dare when their word against the cop's can be near perfectly tested.

Exactly.

The dropping in use of force shows that police officers were using too much force before, but now that they can easily be held accountable they don't dare when their word against the victim can be near perfectly tested.

No need to get into all that. I think we can all agree that

A: Accountability and transparency for our law enforcement is a good thing.
B: It's bound to keep hot heads on both sides in check.

The number of complaints most likely dropped due to two reasons:

1) cops who like to use excessive force know they are being watched
2) people who like to claim police brutality know they are being watched

 d-usa wrote:
The number of complaints most likely dropped due to two reasons:

1) cops who like to use excessive force know they are being watched
2) people who like to claim police brutality know they are being watched

Addendum to point 2: people who are inclined to start something know they're on camera and decide not to start something

Anyway, yes, I'm absolutely shocked, shocked to learn that people tend to behave when they know they're on camera and they can't lie about their actions afterwards.

 Chongara wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
This should be mandatory with clear guidance from the department on usage.

Not flipping out when a civilian is using their camera phone is the other half of this.

See the thing with people bringing out cameras is at that point some jerk has already started crap. Maybe the cop is the one already being a jerk and doesn't want it caught on camera when he wouldn't have started it in the first place if the camera was always on. Maybe the cop is just pissed of because some jerk started crap him and the camera is only so much more on the pile now. Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, or reporting or whatever a camera is once somebody has decided to start being a dick.

A body camera on the cop would clear all that up right away, wouldn't it?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The dropping in use of force shows that police officers were using too much force before, but now that they can easily be held accountable they don't dare when their word against the victim can be near perfectly tested.

It can also mean when a suspect understands that he/she is being video recorded, he/she stops escalating because of the additional charges it can bring.

At least one side is in the wrong usually. Sometimes it's the member of the public, sometimes it's the cop, sometimes it's both. Let's stop chasing our tail in this particular circle, we get it. Some of you think it is the member of the public who does it more often, some of you think it is the member of the police force. I don't care. Stop going around in that circle.

 Breotan wrote:
This should be mandatory with clear guidance from the department on usage.

Not flipping out when a civilian is using their camera phone is the other half of this.

Agreed and for several reasons. All that does is just end up on YouTube making the police look like the bad guy and that's not good for anyone. Just once I'd like to see a civilian post a video like that with the officer being cool and level headed.

This is good news though, I've thought this was a good idea from the get go

I'm all for this. It's a simple solution to dropping complaint and use of force rates, and certainly sees results. Only the thick skulled of both parties would do something while knowing they are on camera, and will have proof going against them.

There are problems with this, so far you have only seen the positive, there is a negative side.

1. Petty accusation can easily be magnified.

This applies to matters of perception. If a member of the public perceives someone as being threatening, or bigoted neither of which necessarily include actual threats or bigotry, the camera can be a two edged sword.
Cops will have to watch every word and action in case it gets blown out of proportion.

In some peoples eyes cops not showing fawning respect is lack of respect and therefore racism. And there is no shortage of lawyers to pursue those lines of


1. Cops might hold back in fear of incriminating themselves.

This might seem like a good thing, but as incrimination may well be baseless but nonetheless supported by camera. If things get as bad as they can get police might avoid interactions on camera they might get into trouble from. To them it might not be worth it.

But the camera doesnt lie you might say. Yes, but.... Show two different people with different preconceptions of law enforcement or the race divide and the same video can have a polarising effect. One side may see a justifiable action, the other a blatant case of police brutality or racism.

Cops will not want the endless hassle this brings.



The technology is in its honeymoon phase, but it is only a matter of time before a cop is videoed doing or saying something under the pressure of untimed citcumstance and personal danger he did not mean to do, and for that to be blown out of all proportion.
As cops start spending time in courtrooms more justifying their actions seen on camera a growing fear of the camera will be there.

Good you might say. Wrong, even an innocent cop cleared of any accusation leveled at him from his camera feed will likely have the mental pressure of months of uncertainty, ansd if the video goes viral it can be orders of magnitude worse, for themselves or their families.

Meanwhile genuine racist and corrupt cops out to look for trouble will simply have camera malfunctions ranging from lack of video space to dead power to a smeared lens. Scumbag cops looking to cause trouble will have a million ways around it.

Meanwhile it will be standard practice for lawyers to demand the video and protect their clients by looking for the thinnest excuse to paint the police in a negative light, likely with claims of charges against the cops.
How many times do we hear of stories of counterclaims against police because a known scumbag was arrested. Sometimes there are genuine concerns, but the cases of suspects trying it on greatly exceeds this.


Putting videos on policemen is not new, other forces have tried it before, most quickly remove the cameras.

It is very hard to do a dangerous job in face of a frequently hostile population where things can go dangerously wrong at a moments notice and a bewilderingly wide array of circumstances. Meanwhile you are expected to show 20/20 omniscience in reading a situation, and are facing possible death, or trial be media if you make any move wrong. Too slow to react and you may get shot, to quick and people will hold riots in your name and politicians will be bowing to the mob call for you to face indictment on felony charges with calls for long prison terms.
As a cop you face this risk every minute of your duty time. You will have to watch every single word you say, even when deep in the heat outnumbered unsupported and under threat of violence in case someone thinks one word or other is offensive and tries to paint you as a bigot.

Dashboard cameras are mild compared to this.

 Chongara wrote:
Jerks who interact with cops are less likely to start crap when they know they're on camera.
Jerks who are cops are less likely to start crap when they know they're on camera.

Since most crap that goes down with cops happens when one or more of those parties is jerk starting it, of course it's gonna go down.

Bingo. I'd pay up to 2% more in my city sales tax every year to make these mandatory for all Cincy police.

 Orlanth wrote:
There are problems with this, so far you have only seen the positive, there is a negative side.

1. Petty accusation can easily be magnified.

This applies to matters of perception. If a member of the public perceives someone as being threatening, or bigoted neither of which necessarily include actual threats or bigotry, the camera can be a two edged sword.
Cops will have to watch every word and action in case it gets blown out of proportion.

In some peoples eyes cops not showing fawning respect is lack of respect and therefore racism. And there is no shortage of lawyers to pursue those lines of


1. Cops might hold back in fear of incriminating themselves.

This might seem like a good thing, but as incrimination may well be baseless but nonetheless supported by camera. If things get as bad as they can get police might avoid interactions on camera they might get into trouble from. To them it might not be worth it.

But the camera doesnt lie you might say. Yes, but.... Show two different people with different preconceptions of law enforcement or the race divide and the same video can have a polarising effect. One side may see a justifiable action, the other a blatant case of police brutality or racism.

Cops will not want the endless hassle this brings.



The technology is in its honeymoon phase, but it is only a matter of time before a cop is videoed doing or saying something under the pressure of untimed citcumstance and personal danger he did not mean to do, and for that to be blown out of all proportion.
As cops start spending time in courtrooms more justifying their actions seen on camera a growing fear of the camera will be there.

Good you might say. Wrong, even an innocent cop cleared of any accusation leveled at him from his camera feed will likely have the mental pressure of months of uncertainty, ansd if the video goes viral it can be orders of magnitude worse, for themselves or their families.

Meanwhile genuine racist and corrupt cops out to look for trouble will simply have camera malfunctions ranging from lack of video space to dead power to a smeared lens. Scumbag cops looking to cause trouble will have a million ways around it.

Meanwhile it will be standard practice for lawyers to demand the video and protect their clients by looking for the thinnest excuse to paint the police in a negative light, likely with claims of charges against the cops.
How many times do we hear of stories of counterclaims against police because a known scumbag was arrested. Sometimes there are genuine concerns, but the cases of suspects trying it on greatly exceeds this.


Putting videos on policemen is not new, other forces have tried it before, most quickly remove the cameras.

It is very hard to do a dangerous job in face of a frequently hostile population where things can go dangerously wrong at a moments notice and a bewilderingly wide array of circumstances. Meanwhile you are expected to show 20/20 omniscience in reading a situation, and are facing possible death, or trial be media if you make any move wrong. Too slow to react and you may get shot, to quick and people will hold riots in your name and politicians will be bowing to the mob call for you to face indictment on felony charges with calls for long prison terms.
As a cop you face this risk every minute of your duty time. You will have to watch every single word you say, even when deep in the heat outnumbered unsupported and under threat of violence in case someone thinks one word or other is offensive and tries to paint you as a bigot.

Dashboard cameras are mild compared to this.

Police in the UK have had body cameras in use since 2006 and have not had any of these issues. In fact they have proved to be a huge success, reducing crime, reducing complaints, reducing assaults on officers and reducing paperwork as officers no longer needed to do as much statement writing.

 Orlanth wrote:

Meanwhile genuine racist and corrupt cops out to look for trouble will simply have camera malfunctions ranging from lack of video space to dead power to a smeared lens. Scumbag cops looking to cause trouble will have a million ways around it.

Y'know the solution to this? Have a protocol in place to punish cops who try to cheat. Figure out what a normal malfunction rate is for a clean cop, and have exemptions for situations which are obviously not the cops fault (eg shot through the camera, tackled a perp into the mud, etc.). As long as the Cop doesn't have too many problems, just remind them to be more careful of their camera. Then, make them undergo remedial camera training. Then escalate to things like administrative leave, loss of bonuses, and all the way to potential firing.

 Steve steveson wrote:

Police in the UK have had body cameras in use since 2006 and have not had any of these issues.

Fact check.

First used in a pilot in Devon and Cornwall police in 2005, no large scale deployment until the Met receive full coverage next year. There have been many 'trials' though.

 Steve steveson wrote:

In fact they have proved to be a huge success, reducing crime, reducing complaints, reducing assaults on officers.....

The one definitive advantage has been an increase of early guilty pleas, which cuts court time and costs.

The opther decreases are a natural follow up from the reduced likelihood of police involvement. BWV has reduced police force, not necessarily reduced crime. Therer is a differemnce, police are using less force because the presence of the camera often makes them unsure. Police bystanders are now an issue as the camera may well cost them their job if they act in public interest but are not 100% sure of what they do.

The reduction in violence against police is a statistical aberration, spun up to show the 'success' of BWV as police act less they are less in harms way.

 Steve steveson wrote:

and reducing paperwork as officers no longer needed to do as much statement writing.

That is not true. Full statements have to be written in any case. You cant just say see refer to video. In fact in the last decade paperwork for police overall has increased if anything.


To add to this a number of rights issues regarding privacy and data protection that body cam causes.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/09/11/police-body-cameras-may-solve-one-problem-but-create-others

They have been in use for many years by a number of forces. Hampshire police finished the trial in 2008 and gave them to about 1/6th of the total force, now rolled out to 2/3rds. Implying that there has only been "tests" is rather disingenuous.

As for the rest, at this point your going to have to provide evidence for what your saying, otherwise it is just going backwards and forwards.