JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I have lots of concerns friend.

The point I'm am trying to make is that people are going to demand this kind of video justification in the future, which I do think is good for everyone. It leaves nothing to the imagination. I have no problem with that part. I have no idea what you do for a living, but if the public demanded that my company start putting out videos to justify our actions, we wouldn't have enough time or manpower to complete our other responsibilities. My guess is that researching the footage, putting it together in a cohesive timeline, adding in specific captions to explain what's going on and then making a production out of it takes time and people. The recent calls to defund the police is potentially going to force police departments to operate with less money and less people. If this is going to become a required part of justifying police actions then it might come at the expense of another program. All I'm saying.

I'm also concerned that when this same exact scenario occurs with badge cam video being inconclusive and no other CCTV footage available, what happens then? I hope the public will understand, but I fear it will then become a "cop conspiracy", that they didn't provide footage because the incident was not justifiable. I just see lots of worms coming out of this can.

There's an inherent trust in the police that underlies your post and it's this aspect to which I disagree. Cops are human - not without flaws nor infallible. Yet, their position grants them the state's monopoly on violence as one of many powers and they enjoy the privilege of qualified immunity as well. In some hypothetical world where all cops are saints, this is a non-issue. Given that police have such power, how would you weed out corruption? How would you find abuses of power?

Fact is, we don't have a system to balance out the powers granted to police. Forcing the recording of video for their interactions with the public is a good first step in balancing their powers with the public's. I think you're overestimating the time cost to this idea. Many a fully automatic system have already been built to do this type of work; it's not some guy in a broom closet having to work on a 10 year old computer with some outdated version of Final Cut.

We're turning the corner from believing that cops are vetted to be righteous executors of the law whose word is gold to realizing that cops are people too and maybe we shouldn't hold their word over another's. Best thing that can happen, for everyone, is the recording of interactions with the public, especially if a shooting occurs. You're always going to have the conspiracy folks - that's not the point. The point is to provide a jury with the best evidence with which to reach a verdict. If that means a shaky bodycam video, then so be it - it's better than verbal testimony alone. Not only that, but as we get more used to this the tools and systems will get better. I think there are far fewer worms in the can.
 
There's an inherent trust in the police that underlies your post and it's this aspect to which I disagree. Cops are human - not without flaws nor infallible. Yet, their position grants them the state's monopoly on violence as one of many powers and they enjoy the privilege of qualified immunity as well. In some hypothetical world where all cops are saints, this is a non-issue. Given that police have such power, how would you weed out corruption? How would you find abuses of power?

Fact is, we don't have a system to balance out the powers granted to police. Forcing the recording of video for their interactions with the public is a good first step in balancing their powers with the public's. I think you're overestimating the time cost to this idea. Many a fully automatic system have already been built to do this type of work; it's not some guy in a broom closet having to work on a 10 year old computer with some outdated version of Final Cut.

We're turning the corner from believing that cops are vetted to be righteous executors of the law whose word is gold to realizing that cops are people too and maybe we shouldn't hold their word over another's. Best thing that can happen, for everyone, is the recording of interactions with the public, especially if a shooting occurs. You're always going to have the conspiracy folks - that's not the point. The point is to provide a jury with the best evidence with which to reach a verdict. If that means a shaky bodycam video, then so be it - it's better than verbal testimony alone. Not only that, but as we get more used to this the tools and systems will get better. I think there are far fewer worms in the can.

I appreciate your views and you make some very good points. I was a boarding officer in the CG for most of my 20 year career, and granted I didn't even remotely have to contend with the type of crap the average street cop has to deal with, I have some experience and perhaps that bit of insight makes me more trusting of them than the average bear. Could also be that I'm a tad naïve, and there are more bad cops out there than I think, but any interaction I've ever had with a police officer was, for the most part, professional and respectful on their part. That being said, I've been a good boy the majority of my life and had very few incidents. I also followed the orders of the police officer and treated him/her with respect as well.

So I guess in a nut shell, my main concern is that the added video requirement will push police departments to reduce their focus on the core mission of public safety because they are forced to focus more on covering their own asses. That, in and of itself, could create some less than honorable actions on the part of individual officers who turn a blind eye so they don't have to risk a potential life/career ending altercation and the scrutiny, character assassination, and second guessing that comes with it. You are probably correct that I am overestimating the amount of effort that may go into a video justification, but I feel like the vast majority of police officers are honest and take on this thankless, relatively low paying job because they feel a calling to help their fellow citizens. Adding more difficulty may just make them think twice. Thanks again for expanding on your views.
 
So, a cop shoots at someone and your concern is the work load?

This appears to be a perfectly justifiable use of force, and we wouldn't know that without the video. This evidence is the best defense a cop could have for why they used deadly force.

@Hueco , you have many good and articulate points in your posts. Likewise @JohnnyMac notes some challenges. As a retired LEO I'm pro-video. Our cars had them beginning in 1990 where I had to replace video tapes in my truck during the shift (at least VHS and not Beta). Allow me to share 30 years of pros and cons most of the population does not think about.

Pro:
  • Weeding out bad cops or allowing for retraining / counseling of good cops who need a nudge in the right direction
  • Often instant verification officer did not do anything wrong (one of our chiefs would bring in citizens who were complaining about and officer's conduct, listen to their gripe, turn his monitor around and hit play, saying, "Let me know when we get to the part where my officer's conduct was inappropriate." (hint, nearly always the officer was polite and the citizen was MF-ing the officer during the encounter.)
  • Training opportunities
  • Court (but not always)

Cons:
  • Video storage takes an immense amount of space and money (imagine the amount of memory needed for a moderately large department with dozens of 4K videos running 24/7/365).
  • DA's and juries demand video (kinda the CSI effect)
  • Videos do not show everything (we had Deputy District Attorneys not file slam dunk cases because you could not see enough details on cases like DUI field sobriety tests)
  • Equipment malfunctions - no fault of the officers and the equipment messes up and everyone thinks they are hiding something.
  • Is video subject to disclosure? (Should be open to the public right? So does that mean your company, neighbor, ex-spouse, etc. can gain access to not-criminal but less than stellar (drunk) interaction with you and the police? Yes, yes it does.)
  • Monitoring video - It is absolutely impossible for an agency to monitor all video.
  • There are many parts of police work that are legal, just not played by Marquees of Queensbury rules. Things officers say to certain groups of folks are different from others...this can make them look bad in the eyes of some juries, DA's etc. (i.e. you talk to grandma going to church on Sunday differently than a career criminal who is being non-compliant while intoxicated and holding a weapon).

I'm a fan of video, in vehicle fleets too. But for every positive there are negatives, often costly and labor intensive. Defunding...not going to help.

Thanks to both of you for your perspectives!
 
This thread provides a textbook example of a rational and respectful discussion on an important and potentially controversial topic. It says an awful lot about the caliber of people who posted.
 
This thread provides a textbook example of a rational and respectful discussion on an important and potentially controversial topic. It says an awful lot about the caliber of people who posted.

Let me bring the level back down a bit. Some of the comments on that video are classics, but you have to look at this version (*) instead of the official one where comments are turned off.

theOutlaw.png

(*) Alternate version:
 
From his 'romantic partner' in an article:

"He wasn't perfect but (he) strived to make everybody happy as best he could," Huerta said. "He was selfless and would've gave the shirt off his back to anybody in need regardless of knowing them or not. He was loyal and smiled through good or bad situations in his life."
 
The article called the blackpowder pistol a gun, last I knew, federal laws say they are not.

O well, 1 for the copper and 0 for MS-13.
This gets brought up a LOT by many who "think" that because they can buy these by mail they are not a firearm. The problem for many who think that is almost all if not all states classify them as a firearm. Lost track of the times someone on line would say they could carry these and laws would not matter. Assuming he could not own a gun, which I suspect he could not, and he had not been shot, he would still be charged with possession of that thing.
Have to wonder where in the hell he got ahold of that in the first place.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top