The hidden cost of police body cams

[Bronzeage]

District Attorney shares list with defense attorneys of 30 cops with questioned credibility



In the past month or so, there's been a lot of talk in my neighborhood about a City Policeman who had a suspect run from a routine traffic stop. The policeman pursued and traded shots with the suspect while running through yards of a residential area. They caught the guy and took him to jail. He claimed he didn't have a gun.

Investigators found plenty of people who were in the area, but nobody heard more than one shot. The policeman's body cam and dash cam were both disabled.

Eventually, the truth came out. The policeman not only violated about a dozen department regulations, but he lied in his statement about the incident. Before the days of body cams, this probably wouldn't have become an issue, but now, if a policeman can't back up his story with video, it's automatically suspect.

The policeman was fired for policy violation, but not charged with a crime. People wondered about that, but then a new truth emerged. This officer was the witness in several prosecutions where his testimony was key to the DA's case. All those charges had to be dismissed.

Not only that, but the District Attorney's Office released a list of all local law enforcement officers who had been disciplined for lying on statements or falsifying records. What this means in the real world, the world where taxpayers foot the bill, thousands of hours of work by prosecutors and investigators goes down the drain.

Those officers who were disciplined and remain on the force cannot be brought to testify on any matter which can't be backed up by corroborating evidence. Even then, I would expect it to be an issue for the defense to raise.

When body cams and dash cams were a new thing, most of the resistance was because of the cost required to equip, maintain and monitor the video produced. Now it turns out, the cameras are costing in ways they never imagined.

 

[phands]

That a cop who clearly lied got caught by body cams, and had to have previous cases where was the witness dismissed is a good thing. That's not a cost, it's a live performance review. The Police force doesn't need people like that - that's what the gop and evangelical churches are for.

 

[Jarhyn]

District Attorney shares list with defense attorneys of 30 cops with questioned credibility



In the past month or so, there's been a lot of talk in my neighborhood about a City Policeman who had a suspect run from a routine traffic stop. The policeman pursued and traded shots with the suspect while running through yards of a residential area. They caught the guy and took him to jail. He claimed he didn't have a gun.

Investigators found plenty of people who were in the area, but nobody heard more than one shot. The policeman's body cam and dash cam were both disabled.

Eventually, the truth came out. The policeman not only violated about a dozen department regulations, but he lied in his statement about the incident. Before the days of body cams, this probably wouldn't have become an issue, but now, if a policeman can't back up his story with video, it's automatically suspect.

The policeman was fired for policy violation, but not charged with a crime. People wondered about that, but then a new truth emerged. This officer was the witness in several prosecutions where his testimony was key to the DA's case. All those charges had to be dismissed.

Not only that, but the District Attorney's Office released a list of all local law enforcement officers who had been disciplined for lying on statements or falsifying records. What this means in the real world, the world where taxpayers foot the bill, thousands of hours of work by prosecutors and investigators goes down the drain.

Those officers who were disciplined and remain on the force cannot be brought to testify on any matter which can't be backed up by corroborating evidence. Even then, I would expect it to be an issue for the defense to raise.

When body cams and dash cams were a new thing, most of the resistance was because of the cost required to equip, maintain and monitor the video produced. Now it turns out, the cameras are costing in ways they never imagined.

Yeah, I'm alright with this cost. Because a lot of those dollars were spent prosecuting individuals who, given this officer's lies, may very well be innocent. Also, is it just me or does this suffer from the "Sunk Cost Fallacy", of decrying the dollars already spent. The fact is, the money was wasted not by bodycams, but by bad cops, which bring their own costs to society.

A better way to put this, one which does not beg a question, is "The Hidden Cost of Bad Cops: yet another truth learned from Bodycams"

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, if this exposed a corrupt cop who lied about the details of an arrest he made then it should absolutely put scrutiny in any other convictions where his testimony about the details of the arrest were the key issue.

Blaming the cost of finding justice here on the body cams is like blaming Abu Ghraib on the fact that soldiers took pictures of turn torturing people, so the cameras were to blame and the proper solution was to ban cameras in military torture dungeons.

 

[crazyfingers]

Keep the body cams. Require they be used. Prosecute cops who don't. Prosecute cops who lie. There is a lot of lost trust that cops need to earn back before I will trust a cop. It is they who need to make being a cop an honorable profession again. It's on them.

 

[RVonse]

I agree with everyone so far. The body cams are a good thing and the fact they cost more money to the tax payer because they exposed corruption.....so what? Justice should be justice regardless of tax expense. If tax payers are so worried about paying money then why are free attorneys made available to criminals who can not pay?

A similar situation also exists in the domestic courts but on a HUGELY larger scale. There are many cases where the wrong guy has to pay child support for a kid that isn't really his because the government feels the tax payer should not have to pay any welfare to the women. And those cases are just as wrong and for exactly the same reason. A person is wrongly punished because he happens to be an easy target to get money out of, all in the name of saving the tax payer money.

Nobody here wants to listen to Derec but he does speak the truth.

 

[crazyfingers]

A couple years ago my wife was pulled over in Maine for alledgedly for driving 80 mph in a 50 mph zone. 30 mph over the speed limit is criminal in Maine. I checked her gps tracks. She was never over 65. The cop claimed his radar said 80. His radar was supposed to be calibrated at least once every two years. It had not been calibrated for 8 years. Our lawyer got her off. He lied.

Same year in Maine a Deputy Sheriff in the same county cracked up his cruiser going 100 mph in a 45 mph zone. He was not on any call. He just wanted to get home. What happened to him? He was put last in line to get one of the new cruisers. Not even a fine for criminal speeding.

 

[Bronzeage]

The upside of this is that the Baton Rouge Police Department has been publicly exposed to be what most people have known for a long time. It's a force of poorly trained and poorly managed policemen. It's just a little too much fun to see the District Attorney's Office, which has sheltered and protected poor policing for many decades have to announce they can't take cases to court because the policeman can't be trusted.

I've been called to jury duty four of five times(never chosen to serve) and had to sit through the questioning of prospective jurors. One question that came up every time was, "Would you put more trust in the testimony of a policeman, because he was a policeman?" I always sat there, hoping my name would be pulled out of the hat, just so I could answer that question.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

District Attorney shares list with defense attorneys of 30 cops with questioned credibility



In the past month or so, there's been a lot of talk in my neighborhood about a City Policeman who had a suspect run from a routine traffic stop. The policeman pursued and traded shots with the suspect while running through yards of a residential area. They caught the guy and took him to jail. He claimed he didn't have a gun.

Investigators found plenty of people who were in the area, but nobody heard more than one shot. The policeman's body cam and dash cam were both disabled.

Eventually, the truth came out. The policeman not only violated about a dozen department regulations, but he lied in his statement about the incident. Before the days of body cams, this probably wouldn't have become an issue, but now, if a policeman can't back up his story with video, it's automatically suspect.

The policeman was fired for policy violation, but not charged with a crime. People wondered about that, but then a new truth emerged. This officer was the witness in several prosecutions where his testimony was key to the DA's case. All those charges had to be dismissed.

Not only that, but the District Attorney's Office released a list of all local law enforcement officers who had been disciplined for lying on statements or falsifying records. What this means in the real world, the world where taxpayers foot the bill, thousands of hours of work by prosecutors and investigators goes down the drain.

Those officers who were disciplined and remain on the force cannot be brought to testify on any matter which can't be backed up by corroborating evidence. Even then, I would expect it to be an issue for the defense to raise.

When body cams and dash cams were a new thing, most of the resistance was because of the cost required to equip, maintain and monitor the video produced. Now it turns out, the cameras are costing in ways they never imagined.

I fail to see the "hidden cost". Like many things with the government, tech has surpassed legislation. City, state and federal legislators need to pass laws backing up the tech being provided.

There are studies that show both police and citizens are much politer and civil when on camera. That, alone, is worth the cost.

 

[Bronzeage]

District Attorney shares list with defense attorneys of 30 cops with questioned credibility



In the past month or so, there's been a lot of talk in my neighborhood about a City Policeman who had a suspect run from a routine traffic stop. The policeman pursued and traded shots with the suspect while running through yards of a residential area. They caught the guy and took him to jail. He claimed he didn't have a gun.

Investigators found plenty of people who were in the area, but nobody heard more than one shot. The policeman's body cam and dash cam were both disabled.

Eventually, the truth came out. The policeman not only violated about a dozen department regulations, but he lied in his statement about the incident. Before the days of body cams, this probably wouldn't have become an issue, but now, if a policeman can't back up his story with video, it's automatically suspect.

The policeman was fired for policy violation, but not charged with a crime. People wondered about that, but then a new truth emerged. This officer was the witness in several prosecutions where his testimony was key to the DA's case. All those charges had to be dismissed.

Not only that, but the District Attorney's Office released a list of all local law enforcement officers who had been disciplined for lying on statements or falsifying records. What this means in the real world, the world where taxpayers foot the bill, thousands of hours of work by prosecutors and investigators goes down the drain.

Those officers who were disciplined and remain on the force cannot be brought to testify on any matter which can't be backed up by corroborating evidence. Even then, I would expect it to be an issue for the defense to raise.

When body cams and dash cams were a new thing, most of the resistance was because of the cost required to equip, maintain and monitor the video produced. Now it turns out, the cameras are costing in ways they never imagined.

I fail to see the "hidden cost". Like many things with the government, tech has surpassed legislation. City, state and federal legislators need to pass laws backing up the tech being provided.

There are studies that show both police and citizens are much politer and civil when on camera. That, alone, is worth the cost.

The hidden cost is more than a hundred cases which can't be prosecuted because the evidence is dependent upon a policeman's testimony. These cases have been prepared and were ready to go to trial. That money and time has been wasted. When body cams were put in place, the DA expected to go to court with better evidence, but the opposite has happened.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

One can imagine a future where EVERYBODY wears a body cam. Plus cheap electronics will make high quality cams easy and affordable so they will end u everywhere. In cars, offices, front doors, back doors, everywhere. Rude cops, lying cops? Sexual harassers at work? The neighbor who does not clean up after his damned dog? Finding out which kid keeps leaving the refrigerator door ajar? No more escape for carjackers, burglars, robbers, rapists. Every auto accident on video. A body camera for every club bouncer. What is Rover barking at now? Check the streaming video from Rover's collar camera.

Google amazon, cheap body cam for some giggles

 

[Jarhyn]

District Attorney shares list with defense attorneys of 30 cops with questioned credibility



In the past month or so, there's been a lot of talk in my neighborhood about a City Policeman who had a suspect run from a routine traffic stop. The policeman pursued and traded shots with the suspect while running through yards of a residential area. They caught the guy and took him to jail. He claimed he didn't have a gun.

Investigators found plenty of people who were in the area, but nobody heard more than one shot. The policeman's body cam and dash cam were both disabled.

Eventually, the truth came out. The policeman not only violated about a dozen department regulations, but he lied in his statement about the incident. Before the days of body cams, this probably wouldn't have become an issue, but now, if a policeman can't back up his story with video, it's automatically suspect.

The policeman was fired for policy violation, but not charged with a crime. People wondered about that, but then a new truth emerged. This officer was the witness in several prosecutions where his testimony was key to the DA's case. All those charges had to be dismissed.

Not only that, but the District Attorney's Office released a list of all local law enforcement officers who had been disciplined for lying on statements or falsifying records. What this means in the real world, the world where taxpayers foot the bill, thousands of hours of work by prosecutors and investigators goes down the drain.

Those officers who were disciplined and remain on the force cannot be brought to testify on any matter which can't be backed up by corroborating evidence. Even then, I would expect it to be an issue for the defense to raise.

When body cams and dash cams were a new thing, most of the resistance was because of the cost required to equip, maintain and monitor the video produced. Now it turns out, the cameras are costing in ways they never imagined.

I fail to see the "hidden cost". Like many things with the government, tech has surpassed legislation. City, state and federal legislators need to pass laws backing up the tech being provided.

There are studies that show both police and citizens are much politer and civil when on camera. That, alone, is worth the cost.

The hidden cost is more than a hundred cases which can't be prosecuted because the evidence is dependent upon a policeman's testimony. These cases have been prepared and were ready to go to trial. That money and time has been wasted. When body cams were put in place, the DA expected to go to court with better evidence, but the opposite has happened.

And I'll say it againisn't a cost of body cams. That's like saying that autism is caused by better detection and screening for autism. No. It was always there, before the body cams. The cost is the cost of letting police operate without oversight. We are paying a debt long due, not reaping some cost imposed freshly.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

One can imagine a future where EVERYBODY wears a body cam. Plus cheap electronics will make high quality cams easy and affordable so they will end u everywhere. In cars, offices, front doors, back doors, everywhere. Rude cops, lying cops? Sexual harassers at work? The neighbor who does not clean up after his damned dog? Finding out which kid keeps leaving the refrigerator door ajar? No more escape for carjackers, burglars, robbers, rapists. Every auto accident on video. A body camera for every club bouncer. What is Rover barking at now? Check the streaming video from Rover's collar camera.

Google amazon, cheap body cam for some giggles

In this day of #MeToo, it may be wise to have one's office wired with "security" cams; open and labeled.

Home security cams (a good system can be installed for less than $500) give peace of mind and have caught several porch thieves especially around Christmas.

Dash cams are very common in Russia where they had a problem of people running and jumping on hoods then claiming liability. A good dash cam is about $50.

Amazon Home security cams

Dash cams

 

[phands]

The hidden cost is more than a hundred cases which can't be prosecuted because the evidence is dependent upon a policeman's testimony. These cases have been prepared and were ready to go to trial. That money and time has been wasted. When body cams were put in place, the DA expected to go to court with better evidence, but the opposite has happened.

Those cases, if they were based on the false testimony of a corrupt police "witness" were not well-prepared, and shouldn't go to trial. That body-cams now can prevent that travesty of justice is NOT a waste of money at all...it is an improvement. In the longer term, this will be an overall saving, not just of money (which isn't the real point), but in fairness and impartiality (which IS).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

District Attorney shares list with defense attorneys of 30 cops with questioned credibility



In the past month or so, there's been a lot of talk in my neighborhood about a City Policeman who had a suspect run from a routine traffic stop. The policeman pursued and traded shots with the suspect while running through yards of a residential area. They caught the guy and took him to jail. He claimed he didn't have a gun.

Investigators found plenty of people who were in the area, but nobody heard more than one shot. The policeman's body cam and dash cam were both disabled.

Eventually, the truth came out. The policeman not only violated about a dozen department regulations, but he lied in his statement about the incident. Before the days of body cams, this probably wouldn't have become an issue, but now, if a policeman can't back up his story with video, it's automatically suspect.

The policeman was fired for policy violation, but not charged with a crime. People wondered about that, but then a new truth emerged. This officer was the witness in several prosecutions where his testimony was key to the DA's case. All those charges had to be dismissed.

Not only that, but the District Attorney's Office released a list of all local law enforcement officers who had been disciplined for lying on statements or falsifying records. What this means in the real world, the world where taxpayers foot the bill, thousands of hours of work by prosecutors and investigators goes down the drain.

Those officers who were disciplined and remain on the force cannot be brought to testify on any matter which can't be backed up by corroborating evidence. Even then, I would expect it to be an issue for the defense to raise.

When body cams and dash cams were a new thing, most of the resistance was because of the cost required to equip, maintain and monitor the video produced. Now it turns out, the cameras are costing in ways they never imagined.

I fail to see the "hidden cost". Like many things with the government, tech has surpassed legislation. City, state and federal legislators need to pass laws backing up the tech being provided.

There are studies that show both police and citizens are much politer and civil when on camera. That, alone, is worth the cost.

The "hidden cost" is the partial dissolution of the presupposed honor of an officer. Their word might no longer be enough. And I think a good number of people are okay with that. It'd be nice if the "hidden cost" meant restoring the defaulted honor to the police.

 

[Bronzeage]

District Attorney shares list with defense attorneys of 30 cops with questioned credibility



In the past month or so, there's been a lot of talk in my neighborhood about a City Policeman who had a suspect run from a routine traffic stop. The policeman pursued and traded shots with the suspect while running through yards of a residential area. They caught the guy and took him to jail. He claimed he didn't have a gun.

Investigators found plenty of people who were in the area, but nobody heard more than one shot. The policeman's body cam and dash cam were both disabled.

Eventually, the truth came out. The policeman not only violated about a dozen department regulations, but he lied in his statement about the incident. Before the days of body cams, this probably wouldn't have become an issue, but now, if a policeman can't back up his story with video, it's automatically suspect.

The policeman was fired for policy violation, but not charged with a crime. People wondered about that, but then a new truth emerged. This officer was the witness in several prosecutions where his testimony was key to the DA's case. All those charges had to be dismissed.

Not only that, but the District Attorney's Office released a list of all local law enforcement officers who had been disciplined for lying on statements or falsifying records. What this means in the real world, the world where taxpayers foot the bill, thousands of hours of work by prosecutors and investigators goes down the drain.

Those officers who were disciplined and remain on the force cannot be brought to testify on any matter which can't be backed up by corroborating evidence. Even then, I would expect it to be an issue for the defense to raise.

When body cams and dash cams were a new thing, most of the resistance was because of the cost required to equip, maintain and monitor the video produced. Now it turns out, the cameras are costing in ways they never imagined.

I fail to see the "hidden cost". Like many things with the government, tech has surpassed legislation. City, state and federal legislators need to pass laws backing up the tech being provided.

There are studies that show both police and citizens are much politer and civil when on camera. That, alone, is worth the cost.

The "hidden cost" is the partial dissolution of the presupposed honor of an officer. Their word might no longer be enough. And I think a good number of people are okay with that. It'd be nice if the "hidden cost" meant restoring the defaulted honor to the police.

Who steals my purse steals trash. 'Tis something, nothing: 'Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands. But he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.

 

[ZiprHead]

A couple years ago my wife was pulled over in Maine for alledgedly for driving 80 mph in a 50 mph zone. 30 mph over the speed limit is criminal in Maine. I checked her gps tracks. She was never over 65. The cop claimed his radar said 80. His radar was supposed to be calibrated at least once every two years. It had not been calibrated for 8 years. Our lawyer got her off. He lied.

Same year in Maine a Deputy Sheriff in the same county cracked up his cruiser going 100 mph in a 45 mph zone. He was not on any call. He just wanted to get home. What happened to him? He was put last in line to get one of the new cruisers. Not even a fine for criminal speeding.

Paraphrasing Bill Maher: Cops complain about black people not squealing on other black people. Black people to cops - You first.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

A couple years ago my wife was pulled over in Maine for alledgedly for driving 80 mph in a 50 mph zone. 30 mph over the speed limit is criminal in Maine. I checked her gps tracks. She was never over 65. The cop claimed his radar said 80. His radar was supposed to be calibrated at least once every two years. It had not been calibrated for 8 years. Our lawyer got her off. He lied.

Same year in Maine a Deputy Sheriff in the same county cracked up his cruiser going 100 mph in a 45 mph zone. He was not on any call. He just wanted to get home. What happened to him? He was put last in line to get one of the new cruisers. Not even a fine for criminal speeding.

Paraphrasing Bill Maher: Cops complain about black people not squealing on other black people. Black people to cops - You first.

LOL and agreed. I fully support both body cams 24/7 and severe penalties for any police officer who doesn't use them. This requires a budget increase for police departments. Additionally, I support public cams in busy public areas.

One thing I am against is "robocam" citations as a violation of due process. Let's fix that.

 

[phands]

The "hidden cost" is the partial dissolution of the presupposed honor of an officer. Their word might no longer be enough. And I think a good number of people are okay with that. It'd be nice if the "hidden cost" meant restoring the defaulted honor to the police.

That shouldn't be hidden. The presupposition that police officers are inherently trustworthy is just plain wrong. Trust is earned, not automatic, and even then "Trust but Verify", because even the best trained people make mistakes or miss things under pressure.

 

[Jarhyn]

The "hidden cost" is the partial dissolution of the presupposed honor of an officer. Their word might no longer be enough. And I think a good number of people are okay with that. It'd be nice if the "hidden cost" meant restoring the defaulted honor to the police.

That shouldn't be hidden. The presupposition that police officers are inherently trustworthy is just plain wrong. Trust is earned, not automatic, and even then "Trust but Verify", because even the best trained people make mistakes or miss things under pressure.

Yeah, respect is given for now, but must be justified when we get to "later". It's later, and we still have no justification. As such, it is right to revoke consent now until Trust is reestablished later still. Maybe if incidents stop happening where bodycam footage is mysteriously unavailable whenever there is question surrounding an incident...