You missed the point. He's talking about the privacy of the family and victim.

My privacy would come in if the video rolled 100% of the time when on duty. Then we have talk about privacy. Restroom breaks. Phone conversations with my wife. If I go home to pee(which is allowed thru policy) now the public knows where I live and what the layout of my house is, what I have inside my house, and if I have a dog.

Like I said Body Cams have a place. But discretion and common sense are most important.

Right here.

If you have nothing to hide....

And to toss a sticky wicket into this, what if the officer's video garners enough hits that he earns some revenue from YouTube on it.



 

From a practical standpoint "It's all allowed unless there is a reason" is a shit load more onerous on the departments to manage than "It's not allowed unless there's a court order" while adding very little public value.  If you have a reason, even if it's academic or journalistic research, going to a judge isn't an unreasonable safeguard against the privacy of crime and medical victims' homes.

I'm sure you guys get a bunch of horseshit daily I think the body cams will help stomp out a lot of the finger pointing.

Agreed, so long as there is a competent advocate for the privacy rights of victims and those suffering mental or physical issues.  

I am far from certain that having some junior ADA fill that role would be desirable.  (No offense to any ADAs out there, but let's face it, you know that job would likely get assigned to the most clueless candidate available, absent some legislative mandate to the contrary.)

Unlikely.  I mean, they help in judicial settings, but not as far as community opinion and lying goes.  "They faked that video!"

I would image the same law(s)/regulations pertaining to law enforcement vehicle dash cams would/should apply to officer body cams. I'm guessing those laws probably vary by state, but most would probably list the dash cam video as evidence and not public record, only available via subpoena in court.



Just a guess.

It would need to be actual information about what is in the video they are requesting.  As in "Two traffic stops, a DV call, and an EMS run" so a proper balance could be obtained.

They two aren't entirely parallel as dash cams rarely show the interior of citizens' houses.  

I would bet dollars to doughnuts (because this is a cop thread after all ) that had the officer been wearing a body cam in the Michael Brown/Ferguson incident, and the body cam 100% corroborated the officers accounting of what happened, it still wouldn't have stopped the narrative by the leftists, race-baiters, and dindus of the community.





 

This.

Like I said....rarely.  

You really want footage of me on the shitter?

I'm referring to the purported abuse by officers. Video doesn't lie. If an officer Fucks up we'll knock his dick into the dirt. If a suspect crys foul and it's found the officer acted within reason....to bad......kick rocks fucker. enjoy sloppy Joe Thursdays.

My real issue with these things is that there are a host of issues that need to be addressed, and which could have been mostly (there are always teething troubles with new developments) addressed prior to them coming into use.

Instead, now people are reacting to the issues in a piecemeal and kneejerk fashion, which I suspect will lead to a reduction in the effectiveness of body cameras, at least compared to their promise.  I mean, there are places that are going to have to respond to FOIA requests based on the laws of that state, which is not only going to have repercussions for the privacy concerns of victims/witnesses, but might lead to physical safety concerns for victims and witnesses.  Not to mention potentially having a chilling effect on prospective witnesses and victims in future cases.  Now there are places thinking of dropping the cameras, and places redrafting their use policies to make them far less effective.  

I mean, I'll make myself a hypothetical here:  I am a raging ass, with no manners and no respect for others.  I go around all day berating and being rude to everyone I deal with.  Slap a camera on me, and that's gonna come out pretty quick, but let my department (not mine, by the way, but one I know of,) get worried about exposing victims and witnesses, and people suffering mental and physical distress, and have fears of lawsuits from the families of victims, and let them institute a policy of severely restricting when the camera can be used, and my flaws are going to be much harder to detect.  In the place I'm speaking of, the camera, after worries spawned by local FOIA requests coupled with the things going on in WA, gets turned on only when a situation gets violent.  Because the unit captures the 30 seconds prior to activation, they feel that is a good balance, but it really isn't.

Maybe my example is a bit out there, but you get my drift---policies and laws are going to be drafted/implemented which turn what could be a valuable tool into little more than a nuisance for officers, a still real threat to public privacy, and a near useless security blanket for administrators.  I'm not saying it's going to go down like that everywhere, but I suspect that even where it doesn't, they will end up being more harmful than helpful overall.


As a last note---given the studies that suggest that widespread use of these reduces both officer use of force and citizen complaints, one would think that after some additional study, someone could quantify a realistic cost savings over time from the use of these devices, and perhaps municipalities and state governments could use some of the funds thus liberated to support some putative body, not staffed by LE or city/county attorney personnel, who could act as reviewers/advocates to determine whether given recordings should be released pursuant to appropriate request.

Absolutely, I've said the same thing before.  Waiting to figure out how they are used and how they protect everyone's rights is something best determined before the horse leaves the barn.

I'm good with body cameras because it will clear more cops than it will incriminate. Just don't be upset when a cop has his own youtube video compilation of "greatest sobriety test fails" and you're in it.

Seriously, cameras aren't the issue, FOIA is. Just needs to be tweeked. For example:

allegation of LEO misconduct / rights violation means only lawyers / judge / grand jury have access.
if the LEO is found innocent, don't publish to public.
if the LEO is found guilty, publish it to the public (if victim agrees).
This should also apply to the suspect caught on film.

My concern is that lawyers, attempting to find racial bias etc... will want to comb weeks or months worth of an officer's cam footage to hopefully show the officer treats some people different from others. Being aware of this, LEOs will start standardizing all decision making. Discretion is gone. Instead of letting you go with a warning, now everyone gets a ticket, because of lawyers and activists.

Yeah, but c'mon man, you've worked for the government too---you know that ain't the way they roll.

Suicide victims are public employees?

It depends.  The organization I work for has embraced IT service management and there would be someone getting a counseling session at the very least for ordering exactly what the customer didn't ask for or for failing to have basic life-cycle plans in place.  But I've worked for organizations where that isn't the case, and in the main point of this thread getting the legislature to actually fix a problem before it's a crisis is damn near impossible.

out

Public employees use the restroom from time to time on occasion.  Guess he wants video of that too.

As a public servant I take a different approach to this dilemma.  I wear a privately purchased body cam and I use it every shift.  I have nothing to hide so as part of the public's desire to keep me accountable I say show EVERYTHING.  Interviewing a rape victim, post it.  Accident scene with dead family members, log on and get a good look.  Murder victim laying in a pool of blood, take a gander.  If you want to see what I do and are so concerned then you should get to see it all.  Don't forget your teenage daughter getting drilled in the backseat of her boyfriend's car when I am dispatched to a suspicious vehicle.  Let everyone see what I see.
 

Some asshat media organization from New York did a FOIA request of the Kentucky State Police for any and all CCW permit data including names and addresses about 2 years ago.  Ksp told them to pound sand.

As long as you are good with your name, address, phone number, driver's license number, social security number, picture, height, weight, eye color, and CCW weapons status along with video of you being put on YouTube next time you report a crime or get pulled over and the cops run your driver's license.  That info is all in the report or ticket you get (be you a crime victim or a perpetrator).  

I look forward to seeing what kind of stuff you own next time a cop comes to your house for some reason.  Billy the meth head is down the road looks forward to getting a tour of your belongings too.

 

Reading is fundamental.  Plenty of posters here arguing that all video should be made public.  One even said Government employees have no privacy or some nonsense.  Who is gonna edit that stuff out of the videos?  A typical workweek an officer will work at least 40 hours.  Multiply that number by a 900 member agency and you have at least 36,000 hours of video per week; 144,000 per month.  Who's gonna pay for that?  If you think your taxes aren't gonna go up your nuts.

Yes, yes it is. Try reading page 2 of this thread. It might shed some light on those "fundamentals."



 

Someone posted the wording of the legislation above.  That is EXACTLY what it does.


But this cop hate circle jerk will continue on for at least 5 more pages.

IN

lol

 

Reading is for faggots when it comes to some posters and anything to do with police.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

BS. Public or its totally worthless and a waste of money.

I read some more of what you posted later on.  That first post didn't really clarify things as much.  Someone just replied to me saying that posting private information of citizens is a "small price to pay" so there are those here who have that type of opinion.  Glad you aren't one of them

ETA: The first cop who starts a YouTube channel with "worlds goriest car wrecks" and starts making money off it, there will be a huge outcry for this video to no longer be public.

I tend to agree.  This will be quite an issue that will keep courts and lawyers busy for a long time.

There's obviously a public interest in making video of police use of force public, but there are so many things that cops do every day that the general public has absolutely zero right to see, and frankly things that most normal people have no desire to see.

You missed my point. I don't care if what I do is made public, I have nothing to hide. However, some of the shit I see should not be public, to protect victims and other individuals.  

You really want to see me giving CPR to an infant who doesn't make it?  Or a few weeks ago the guy who laid on train tracks to commit suicide? So his kids bully can get the video and post it on Facebook of me putting cones by body parts?

When was the last time you had a dash cam footage of inside a house on a domestic,  or a DOA?

That isn't what he would be looking for.

Agreed.

Many haters of freedom in here.

How is it different? I mean, other than seeing their couch, toilet, and dinnerware on the table both dash cam and body cam show the same categories of things - people and stuff. Body cam footage would basically be like an episode of cops.



 

lol, no.

So much ignorance, so little time.

Dash cameras are usually taken outside where people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Body cameras frequently go into people's houses where they have an expectation of privacy from the entire YouTube user base.

And Cops somehow gets releases to show people's faces which is why you sometimes see people blurred.

I am not explaining the obvious difference.

You really failed at understanding his point.
Or do you just want to make sure you can watch us pee while on the clock?!

Imho
I think ALL leo should be issued body cams
I think EVERYTHING should be recorded
I have no issue with all footage being accessible only by court order
my only concern is WHO is allowed to deem whether or not the footage should be released.

You answered your concern with the sentence prior to it.

I think we are viewing this from two different angles. I'm saying how different is it if the video is not public and considered evidence only available via a subpoena. If it were public domain then it's a different discussion with reams of privacy concerns