Unintended Consequences, Here We Come

[Trausti]

A new study by Temple University researchers, however, suggests that the wearable video cameras may not lead to fewer police shootings of civilians, but may actually make officers more likely to use lethal force.

What’s more, they found that body cameras were associated with a larger increase in shooting deaths of African Americans and Hispanics than whites and Asians.

The professors found almost no link between cameras and shooting deaths in 2013 and 2014. The difference between those years and 2015, they surmise: Officers grew more comfortable using the devices in the field. “It could take a while for police officers to realize how helpful evidence from body cameras can be in justifying the use of lethal force,” they write.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/08/12/study-links-police-bodycams-to-increase-in-shooting-deaths/
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2808662&download=yes

I favor body cameras, as they help to protect the public from abuse and the police officer from false accusations. But wouldn't have thought that police officers would see body cameras as an aid to justify use of force. Heh.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd wait for confirmation down the road.

 

[Medicine Man]

I favor body cameras, as they help to protect the public from abuse and the police officer from false accusations. But wouldn't have thought that police officers would see body cameras as an aid to justify use of force. Heh.

Seeing-as-how it's always been the cop's discretion....to decide what constitutes "resistance".....you're pretty-much at their mercy, no matter what you do.....and, THEY know that, as well. If you happen, upon one, who's wife just told him she wants a divorce....you've pretty-much tapped-out your luck quotient.

It's up to cops to make the changes!!! If they refuse to deal with the rogue-cops, then the leads gonna fly. An outta-control cop is no different than a garden-variety bully....WITH A GUN....and, it's not-all-that-difficult to image he's the same to other-cops. Cops KNOW who the bad-ones are.....just like any other collection of employees. You'd expect the ones, who want to go home....alive.....at the end of each shift, would have more a sense of self-preservation.


​

 

[Bronzeage]

It seems too simple for words, but if nothing changes, body cameras will not change anything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What’s more, they found that body cameras were associated with a larger increase in shooting deaths of African Americans and Hispanics than whites and Asians.

The professors found almost no link between cameras and shooting deaths in 2013 and 2014. The difference between those years and 2015, they surmise: Officers grew more comfortable using the devices in the field. “It could take a while for police officers to realize how helpful evidence from body cameras can be in justifying the use of lethal force,” they write.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/08/12/study-links-police-bodycams-to-increase-in-shooting-deaths/
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2808662&download=yes

I favor body cameras, as they help to protect the public from abuse and the police officer from false accusations. But wouldn't have thought that police officers would see body cameras as an aid to justify use of force. Heh.

I've got some problems with it. The first study they reference is a shoot/don't-shoot white/black study. There was a website around with imagery from it--yup, people would make more mistakes with blacks. The problem was a little black gun that was very hard to distinguish in the hands of a dark-skinned person. This is a simple matter of a lack of contrast and not anything racial. The white suspects had no such hard-to-distinguish object.

Beyond that, I see no control for the fact that in many areas body cameras have caused the police to pull back a bit--and thus the crime rate has gone up and it wouldn't be a surprise for use of force to also go up.

 

[repoman]

 

[barbos]

Criminals may mistakingly thought that cameras will help them and as a result became more active. But in reality opposite could be true because bodycams may actually help police..... to shoot more criminals. I think we need more time so that both criminals and police get used to it before collecting statistics.

 

[fast]

The problem was a little black gun that was very hard to distinguish in the hands of a dark-skinned person. This is a simple matter of a lack of contrast and not anything racial. The white suspects had no such hard-to-distinguish object.

I'm not drinking, but if I were, I'd be posting something that would have you questioning my sobriety.

 

[zorq]

Criminals may mistakenly thought that cameras will help them and as a result became more active. But in reality opposite could be true because bodycams may actually help police..... to shoot more criminals. I think we need more time so that both criminals and police get used to it before collecting statistics.

Do you suppose that "criminals" lobbied to have body cameras on police officers?
What makes you think "criminals" would ever factor police body cameras into their "activity level" decision matrix?

I seriously doubt that a gang banger is going to think to himself, "Gee, police have body cameras so now I'll do 5 driveby shootings this week instead of 4!" And a petty thief is not going to say, "Now that police have body cameras I can shoplift 12 pairs of socks instead of my usual 10!"

It's worth reminding you that police don't interact with (or escalate lethal violence against) only criminals, usually they are interacting with suspects who may be completely innocent despite any individual officer's initial suspicions.

Supposing you are only referring to a "criminal's" likelihood to resist arrest I still don't see body cameras factoring into that decision either. When does the motivation to make the cops look bad in the media for abusing a suspected criminal ever trump the criminal's desire to evade arrest? Never.

Body cameras will only ever affect the behavior of police officers who happen to be continuously conscious of them.

 

[repoman]

So, the when the police chased after the guy he shot in Milwaukee, he turned his body cam on, but the sound doesn't kick in for 30 seconds. How the fuck is that supposed to make sense!?!?!?!?

ok, maybe this is the answer I found. if the following is correct, he pressed the start button after the shooting and the 30 second buffer was automatically included.

The system we are discussing is manufactured by Taser (yes, the same company that makes Tasers). Like most police body cam systems, it has a “Record” button. This allows the officer to start and stop recording.

It also has a continuously-rolling 30-second buffer sans audio which is always recording, regardless of the state of the full recording. That buffer’s contents get pre-pended to the video (meaning “stuck on the front”) once the “Record” button is pushed. This allows for an additional 30 seconds of video to be added to the full clip beginning 30 seconds before the button push, but without audio you didn’t intend to record (like the chit-chat between you and your partner before you stepped out of your car). Therefore, the audio began at the moment the officer pressed the “Record” button. The video without the audio was recorded before the officer pushed the button.

Depending on department rules regarding when recordings should start, this may have been a violation of procedure. In this case, the officer with the body cam was providing backup and approaching quickly, so he was more worried about the situation than pushing the button. Therefore, because he was only a backup officer, I would be surprised if this was an actual policy violation, but there are only 17,000+ police departments at the state and local level across the country, how could all of their policies be identical?

Regardless, body cam video adds to the “body of evidence” which can either support or refute an officer’s testimony. It is not intended to “replace” an officer’s testimony. Remember, the camera cannot see everything. It can only see what it’s pointing at. It doesn’t have a 360 degree view.

 

[barbos]

Criminals may mistakenly thought that cameras will help them and as a result became more active. But in reality opposite could be true because bodycams may actually help police..... to shoot more criminals. I think we need more time so that both criminals and police get used to it before collecting statistics.

Do you suppose that "criminals" lobbied to have body cameras on police officers?
What makes you think "criminals" would ever factor police body cameras into their "activity level" decision matrix?

I seriously doubt that a gang banger is going to think to himself, "Gee, police have body cameras so now I'll do 5 driveby shootings this week instead of 4!" And a petty thief is not going to say, "Now that police have body cameras I can shoplift 12 pairs of socks instead of my usual 10!"

It's worth reminding you that police don't interact with (or escalate lethal violence against) only criminals, usually they are interacting with suspects who may be completely innocent despite any individual officer's initial suspicions.

Supposing you are only referring to a "criminal's" likelihood to resist arrest I still don't see body cameras factoring into that decision either. When does the motivation to make the cops look bad in the media for abusing a suspected criminal ever trump the criminal's desire to evade arrest? Never.

Body cameras will only ever affect the behavior of police officers who happen to be continuously conscious of them.

People like Michael Brown are clearly under impression that police are unfair/wrong and are there to get them, therefore they think video will be in their favor, that makes them more likely to resist and harass the police during encounter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, the when the police chased after the guy he shot in Milwaukee, he turned his body cam on, but the sound doesn't kick in for 30 seconds. How the fuck is that supposed to make sense!?!?!?!?

ok, maybe this is the answer I found. if the following is correct, he pressed the start button after the shooting and the 30 second buffer was automatically included.

The system we are discussing is manufactured by Taser (yes, the same company that makes Tasers). Like most police body cam systems, it has a “Record” button. This allows the officer to start and stop recording.

It also has a continuously-rolling 30-second buffer sans audio which is always recording, regardless of the state of the full recording. That buffer’s contents get pre-pended to the video (meaning “stuck on the front”) once the “Record” button is pushed. This allows for an additional 30 seconds of video to be added to the full clip beginning 30 seconds before the button push, but without audio you didn’t intend to record (like the chit-chat between you and your partner before you stepped out of your car). Therefore, the audio began at the moment the officer pressed the “Record” button. The video without the audio was recorded before the officer pushed the button.

Depending on department rules regarding when recordings should start, this may have been a violation of procedure. In this case, the officer with the body cam was providing backup and approaching quickly, so he was more worried about the situation than pushing the button. Therefore, because he was only a backup officer, I would be surprised if this was an actual policy violation, but there are only 17,000+ police departments at the state and local level across the country, how could all of their policies be identical?

Regardless, body cam video adds to the “body of evidence” which can either support or refute an officer’s testimony. It is not intended to “replace” an officer’s testimony. Remember, the camera cannot see everything. It can only see what it’s pointing at. It doesn’t have a 360 degree view.

The fact that he pushed the button after the shooting actually suggests a different answer: That he thought his camera was recording when it wasn't--his turning it on was actually his attempt to turn it off now that things were over. On/Off buttons are prone to this problem.