

Today’s Police Put on a Gun and a Camera - tokenadult
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/us/todays-police-put-on-a-gun-and-a-camera.html

======
tokenadult
Minnesota's requirement, since early in the 1990s, that all custodial
interrogations by police be recorded on videotape felt like a disaster to
police departments when it was first proposed, but now it is generally liked
by all participants in the criminal justice system here.[1] On the whole,
expecting any confession to a crime to be on videotape is just normal life
here now, and everyone has gotten used to how the system works. There will be
legal issues to decide if body cameras become commonplace about whether those
are turned on by default, and how discoverable (and by whom) the videotaped
records are, as the article submitted here reports, but this is just the kind
of issue that courts and legislatures are equipped to deal with, especially if
you the citizen make your point of view known. What's new here is a technical
means that for the first time can massively reduce the he-said, she-said
disputes that have come up in complaints about police conduct. Having more
evidence to evaluate according to the law of evidence and in light of other
legal rights of citizens and responsibilities of the police seems like a
generally good idea.

[1]
[http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Recording_Interrogations.pdf](http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Recording_Interrogations.pdf)

[http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseac...](http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=855&issue_id=42006)

[http://webster.utahbar.org/barjournal/2006/10/crimes_truth_a...](http://webster.utahbar.org/barjournal/2006/10/crimes_truth_and_videotape_man.html)

------
Volundr
This may be a dumb idea, but how hard would it be to put a camera on the gun,
and activate it via the trigger. It seems like even a few low res photos of
what the gun was aiming at could go a long way in investigating office
involved shootings.

~~~
XorNot
This technology exists. The camera starts recording the moment the safety is
off. It's not been deployed yet because of complaints that it reduces accuracy
- which, last I checked the attachment was fairly big (no idea why - a modern
cellphone camera + battery would be tiny).

But we absolutely should have this. Ideally a police-issue firearm which had
it milled right into the chassis.

~~~
bmelton
So, perhaps the popularity of the safety-less Glock is the reason why this
hasn't taken off?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
As my shooting instructor always says "Your number one safety is your finger"
meaning leave it off the trigger until you have something in your sights.

~~~
bmelton
Agreed. And FWIW, I'm not suggesting you change the design of the Glocks
(though I vastly prefer the palm trigger on the 1911s), but thinking it
through, I don't know if a camera that activated at the moment the trigger
pulled would be all that worthwhile.

Perhaps it would (assuming that the timing meant that it was able to capture
more than the flash of the bullet) in certain situations, but I think that the
shoulder-mounted cameras that are always-on provide far more consistent value
in protecting all parties involved to merit serious consideration of trigger
cameras.

------
angersock
So, on the one hand, I think that it should be obvious that all officers on
duty should have cameras running all the time--there should be no reason to
_ever_ need manual on/off of cameras.

That said, there's a lot of trouble there. Consider the recording of normal
daily banter, of normal procedures, or of just really heinous shit at an
accident site. Maybe we don't actually want all of this available.

The big problem is: what happens when a cop comes out on a call and there is
clear photographic evidence of a crime being committed (very likely,
considering the sheer number of things that are technically illegal)? When
there is clear video evidence of, say, possession of paraphernalia, assault,
public intoxication, or whatever else, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to
pick on citizens.

In turn, why would anyone want to interact with cops, ever? They're recording
everything, and it's trivial to go after these minor issues.

I suspect that the deal going to be presented is "Okay, you want us on camera
all the time? Fine. You get what you want--and we're going to handle
'evidence' collected in that way differently than normal." Recalling, of
course, how expensive it is to defend yourself against the state in such
matters, I expect this to be yet another massive push in favor of police power
unless managed very, very carefully.

Also, consider that the desire to film the cops may go away if it is common
knowledge that they're already filming--nevermind that, perhaps, the cameras
or videos are mysteriously corrupted when it comes time to review them. It's
really a great way of defusing suspicion without having to risk actually
changing procedures.

And, to tinfoil further: how long until all these video feeds are being run,
in real-time, through some sort of computer-vision system (much as license
plates are today in some places)? Are we really wanting that?

~~~
smtddr
_> >The big problem is: what happens when a cop comes out on a call and there
is clear photographic evidence of a crime being committed (very likely,
considering the sheer number of things that are technically illegal)? When
there is clear video evidence of, say, possession of paraphernalia, assault,
public intoxication, or whatever else, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to
pick on citizens._

I think this highlights a bigger issue with the justice system in general.
Those minor things shouldn't be illegal to begin with. Or at least, not wreck
your life with an insane fine or criminal record. Those issues should just be
some kind of $50 - $100 fine, maybe an evening in a single person cell, and
that's it. e.g., BART(www.bart.gov) does not want people eating/drinking on
their trains or within paid-areas of the stations or you risk a $250 fine. I
break that rule from time to time because... whatever. A bunch of people break
that rule in fact. No law should be absolute in its application or punishment.
They should be evaluated in case by case basis and context of the situation.

If it's July 4th, people are partying and one of drunk party-goers happens to
run into a cop after stumbling too far from the beach... he/she doesn't
deserve their life to be ruined.

Major sporting event, 2 people from opposite teams get into heated argument.
Both people continued to escalate the situation until eventually a fight
breaks out, I don't think their lives need to be ruined with assault charges.

Our legal definition of "paraphernalia" is messed up, so I won't get into
that. I'll just say that a person who isn't a major drug-lord or drug-pusher
on the corner shouldn't be wrecked by the legal system. Some young person just
experimenting with a small amount of a controlled substance probably just
needs a night in a cell and mandatory drug education class for a week or
something.

~~~
XorNot
$50-$100 fines _are_ life wreckers. Doesn't take too many of those to wipe out
someone's weekly paycheck.

But this isn't a problem: because the police can (and do) do this to people
_now_ , but it's also why we have procedure as a valid defense. Cameras
wouldn't make that worse, they'd make it better. It would mean the procedure
is plain to see. The only policy needed to ensure this is to ban fishing-
expeditions with the footage (which would protect police and citizen alike).
If the police don't write a ticket then and there, then it's illegal to go
through the footage after the fact if it's not relevant to an ongoing
investigation (and make it illegal to file charges for say, non-felonies found
peripheral to that).

Most of this sort of stuff has been put through case law in various guises at
different times already - it's likely it would extend to police cameras by
simple precedent in the courts, if not by explicit policy in advance.

------
briantakita
And when something is the police's fault, the camera mysteriously
"malfunctions".

~~~
krapp
And when the camera actually malfunctions, it must be a conspiracy.

~~~
briantakita
And when the cameras malfunction several orders of magnitude more often than
statistically observed, people who point out such discrepancies are called
"conspiracy theorists" by the "skeptics"...

~~~
krapp
Conspiracy theorists wouldn't take statistics into account, unless those
statistics could be interpreted in their favor. They would insist the video we
can't see is clear evidence of a cover-up, while the video we can see has
probably been doctored or manufactured.

~~~
briantakita
The definition of "Conspiracy Theorist" changes to suit the person who imposes
that label on someone else. It's a flexible & emotionally appealing ad hominem
strategy. Marketers love it because it makes their position appear "realistic"
and "normal" while those who oppose their position are "fringe" and "kooky".

And maybe I'm lucky, but I've never had a camera malfunction on me.

~~~
krapp
I think the definition of 'conspiracy theorist' is pretty generally held -
someone who holds to their belief in a conspiracy regardless of evidence to
the contrary, or who dismisses such evidence as being, itself, part of the
conspiracy.

Although you're right that the label is used to malign and dismiss people who
believe in conspiracies which actually exist, that doesn't mean trying to
examine such things objectively isn't justified, or warranted.

