Discussion»Questions»Life and Society» Should cops not go on duty unless their dash and body cams are in full working order and it be a criminal offense to shut them down?
No deal, we can vote Turncoat out a year earlier that you can do to Trump. Our next election is due in 2019, could be earlier if he loses his majority on the floor. Our system is different to yours, the leader of the party with the most seats in the House is boss. A no-confidence motion could topple the government, and Turnbull's Liberal/National coalition holds that majority by ONE vote - a by-election (forced by a member of his party dying or resigning) could kill it. It's kinda weird, our conservative party is called the "Liberal Party" which is a contradiction in terms. The centre left opposition is the Labor Party. I used to be a member.
Aw, come on! Seriously, I doubt that Trump lasts his full term. Of course, that will mean President Pence, and I'm not sure that'll be an improvement. While he's not obviously mentally disturbed and unstable, some of his ideals are truly frightening.
Yours sounds more like the British system, which makes sense.
That is strange, the "conservative" party being called Liberal/National. Very confusing to outsiders and newcomers.
For once I totally agree with you. There have been way too many people killed by cops for no reason. Enough of that crap.
This post was edited by JakobA the unAmerican. at July 19, 2017 10:21 AM MDT
If a state, county, or city requires cameras for the police then yes, they should be in full working order and used at all times. That way the police officers that abuse their power will be recorded. And the citizens who gun down the police for no reason will also be recorded. Being a former police officer myself, I have to say that although there are some abusive cops, most are not.
The policies for the use of body cameras is left up to local jurisdictions. Here's an interesting link
The following is a partial list of policy recommendations based on research conducted by PERF and the COPS Office.1 Agencies should adapt these recommendations to fit their own needs, resources, legal requirements, and philosophical approach.
With limited exceptions, officers should be required to activate their body-worn cameras when responding to all calls for service and during all law enforcement-related encounters and activities that occur while the officer is on duty. Policies should clearly define what is included in this requirement (e.g., traffic stops, arrests, searches, interrogations, pursuits). When in doubt, officers should record. Many agencies provide exceptions for situations in which recording is unsafe, impossible, or impractical but require officers to articulate in writing or on camera their reasons for not recording. Officers should be required to obtain consent prior to recording interviews with crime victims. This addresses the significant privacy concerns associated with videotaping crime victims. Officers should have the discretion to keep their cameras turned off during conversations with crime witnesses and members of the community who wish to discuss criminal activity in their neighborhood. Some witnesses and community members may be hesitant to come forward if they know they will be recorded. This can undermine community policing and intelligence-gathering efforts. Due to the evidentiary value of these statements, officer should make every attempt to record unless the person is unwilling to speak on camera. In some cases, victims or witnesses may agree to only an audio recording, so an officer may agree to point the camera away from the person and record audio only. Officers should be required to articulate on camera or in writing their reasoning if they fail to record an activity that is required by department policy to be recorded. This holds officers accountable and helps supervisors investigate irregularities. It is also increasingly common for courts and review boards to expect video recordings, so documenting the absence of a video can help alleviate concerns about the officer's credibility. Policies should include specific measures to prevent data tampering, deleting, and copying. It is critical to protect the integrity and security of video footage. Common strategies include: using data storage systems with built-in audit trails, requiring supervisors to download footage of an incident in which the officer was involved, and conducting forensic reviews. Policies should specifically state the length of time that recorded data must be retained. Officers should categorize footage according to the type of event recorded. Retention times for evidentiary footage are typically governed by state evidentiary laws and regulations. For non-evidentiary data, agencies should consider the need to preserve footage to promote transparency and investigate complaints, the state's public disclosure laws, data storage capacity, and departmental policies governing other types of electronic records. Most agencies PERF consulted retain non-evidentiary data for 60 to 90 days. Officers should be permitted to review video footage of an incident in which they were involved prior to making a statement about the incident. Reviewing footage aids officer recollection and leads to more accurate documentation of events. Real-time recording is considered best evidence and is unaffected by stress or other factors. Most police executives PERF consulted favor allowing review in these circumstances. Written policies should clearly describe the circumstances in which supervisors will be authorized to review an officer's body-worn camera footage. PERF recommends that supervisors review footage to investigate complaints and specific incidents, to identify training videos, and to review the activities of officers who are in a probationary period or who have a pattern of abuse allegations. The agency's internal audit unit, rather than an officer's direct supervisor, should conduct random reviews of footage to monitor compliance and assess performance. This policy will help avoid undermining the trust between an officer and supervisor. Agencies should have clear and consistent protocols for releasing recorded data externally to the public and the news media. Each agency's policy must comply with the state's public disclosure laws. PERF generally recommends a broad disclosure policy to promote agency transparency and accountability. However, agencies must always take into account privacy considerations when determining whether to release footage. Policies should include specific measures for preventing unauthorized video access or release. Body-worn camera training should be required for all agency personnel who may use or otherwise be involved with body-worn cameras. This includes supervisors whose officers wear cameras, records management personnel, training personnel, Internal Affairs, etc. Training should be ongoing and include an overview of relevant laws, procedures for operating the equipment safely and effectively, scenario-based exercises, data management procedures, and how to present video evidence in court. Agencies should collect statistical data concerning body-worn camera usage. Collecting and releasing this data helps promote transparency and allows agencies to evaluate program effectiveness. Agencies should conduct periodic reviews of body-worn camera policies and protocols. The COPS Office Resource Center has Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program available for order or download.
Lindsay Miller and Jessica Toliver Police Executive Research Forum
References
1 The complete list of recommendations is found in Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned.
You do realize that whether or not the camera is to be turned on or off is not up to the individual police officer on the force, don't you?.
This post was edited by tom jackson at July 19, 2017 2:42 PM MDT
Slartibartfast 