happythoughts 0 #26 February 1, 2011 I would think that video would be supported by the officers who are doing their job with professionalism. 1- It would be pretty solid evidence of events. 2- It would get rid of the "bad apples" that smear their reputation by association. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #27 February 1, 2011 QuoteI really don't have a personal grudge, rather one for my fellow citizens who are victimized by "vermin" hiding behind police uniforms. A shame that a few ruin it for the many, but I don't see the many doing anything about it. There is none so blind as he who will not see. QuoteTheir silence puts them in the same category. No one hates bad cops more than good cops, including most of their victims. Law enforcement everywhere hates the few who tarnish the badge. Your problem us that you see "vermin" where there are none and see inaction where there is none. Have that cranio-rectal removal procedure and you'll realize it's not worth hating law enforcement. Or you can keep pretending that every story on the five o'clock news is more reason to hate the "vermin."witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #28 February 1, 2011 It is, with three caveats. First, video never tells the whole story. It is never from the best angle, always either grainy or unfocused or blurry, and it will almost never give the full story. Second, editing works wonders, and can make standard procedures and techniques look bad to uneducated folks who like to get the whole story in thirty second soundbytes. Finally, it's never going to be there when you really need it (no what else have I heard that about...?) Watch this video first, and decide whether it is a "good shoot" or a cold blooded murder. Then watch this one and tell me if you changed your mind. I bet you did. Now imagine if the cruiser that filmed the second video ran out of tape, or the disc was full, or in the habit of government issued gear everywhere it was just plain broken. Video can be a wonderful thing, but never think it tells the whole story. This isn't Hollywood where we have fifteen cameras and eighteen takes to get the shot just right to tell the story. Here in the real world, things tend to be a bit more messy.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #29 February 1, 2011 QuoteHere in the real world, things tend to be a bit more messy. and the police will always take advantage of that fact...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #30 February 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteNo one hates bad cops more than good cops, crap, they'll stand by and watch - and then cover for them no probs... (have you ever informed on a fellow officer)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #31 February 1, 2011 Crawl back under your bridge, the grownups are talking.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #32 February 1, 2011 QuoteBe that as it may, as someone who works in law enforcement what do you think of the notion that your interactions with the public are "private conversations", and that either deliberately or accidentally recording any police officer, or any officer issuing a ticket or arresting a suspect, should potentially be punishable by life in prison? How is that compatible with America as a free society? Don I am all for recording anything done by a public official acting in their official capacity. I think most states' laws would agree. Public records are public. They are derived from the words and actions of public officials. Seems those words and actions should be public. When I was a cop, I bought my own recording equipment and recorded interactions I thought might get dicey. I did this for my own protection. I was an honest cop and had to endure some baseless complaints. I generally agree that only people who are going to do or say something wrong would have a problem with recording. There are always exceptions, but I think those would be for the protection of minors and such. Not for the protection of the person speaking / acting.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #33 February 1, 2011 Quote I think it should be mandatory to video record ALL interactions with the police in this country. Maybe that would keep them a little bit honest. And I agree. It should be noted, however, that police cams in cars have been used to justify the police actions in more instances than it has been shown to prove the police incorrect. But hey.... I have zero issue recording every interaction with the police. Keeps everyone honest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #34 February 1, 2011 there are always bad examples of everything. single examples are not the basis of large scale decisions. personally, i have nothing to fear from grainy, poor quality, unedited video. it is an additional viewpoint. additional information. video has no self-interest. 10 individuals with cell phones should not be told to stop recording. 10 views. i fear people who fear the truth. in the link i posted, the person with the camera was not interfering, but was threatened. that is a single instance of a bad example who does not wish to be discovered. fear of the facts. the police are paid to defend the public from abusive people. they should welcome that information. good cops hate bad cops. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DiverMike 5 #35 February 1, 2011 QuoteI am all for recording anything done by a public official acting in their official capacity. That is a little too general. A social working conversing with a child victim of sexual abuse is a public official acting in their official capacity. A lot might have to be redacted from the recording to protect the victim. Now if you add, "in a public setting", I would agree with you. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lurch 0 #36 February 1, 2011 Kennedy those videos... couldn't help but laugh. Darwin in action. *armchair quarterback mode* Those cops owe their lives to the phenomenally stupid "pants falling off ass" style so popular these days. If that guy had been dressed properly, calm and halfway coherent in his actions he could have taken both cops to the head in seconds at that range. On the other hand if he'd been intelligent enough to do that, he would theoretically have been intelligent enough not to get into that situation in the first place. I thought the first cop especially was actually rather slow about it, looked to me like he spent a bit more time assessing the situation as it unfolded than was necessary, certainly gave gankstaboy plenty of time and opportunity to just drop the fucking gun and live after the brief shoving when the guy started trying to walk away. I would have expected gankstaboy to be ventilated by the time he brought his gun up the first time. Homey the ganksta spends more time trying to keep his pants from falling down than he does shooting, in the middle of a freakin close range gunfight. Trying to take a potshot, at a cop, over your shoulder, (under?) while turning your back on two cops and trying to waddle away, hobbled by that stupid fucking ganksta costume. Did society a favor. Cops:1 Ganksta:0 Good shoot. *end quarterback mode* If the gankstas ever smarten up a little, stop dressing like chimpanzees and take their "role" as the opposition a little more seriously your jobs gonna get a lot harder. Of course if they did THAT, maybe they'd be smart enough not to pick a gunfight with the cops.Live and learn... or die, and teach by example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #37 February 1, 2011 Quote And I agree. It should be noted, however, that police cams in cars have been used to justify the police actions in more instances than it has been shown to prove the police incorrect. But hey.... I have zero issue recording every interaction with the police. Keeps everyone honest. Without recording it is almost certain that 100% of those instances would have proven the cops correct because it would have come down to he-said, he-said. Recording is leveling the playing field, does nothing to keep good cops from doing the job correctly."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #38 February 1, 2011 How would you feel about keeping a camera in your car at all times? Would you want to have to film every thing you ever saw before you can say you saw it? Are you going to wear a video camera on your head and carry a mic and recorder running at all times jsut to prove you didn't commit a crime? Because when you think about it, that is the standard you are setting for officers.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #39 February 1, 2011 it seems to be illegal in some places (or being told so) to video events involving police - even if done from a distance and in a non-interfering manner. is this illegal nationally ? if you provide such video to anyone, could you be arrested ? at wffc, i saw a local underage kid get arrested for underaged drinking. 8-10 cameras. no problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DiverMike 5 #40 February 1, 2011 QuoteBecause when you think about it, that is the standard you are setting for officers. Yes I expect higher standards to accompany the higher powers given to policemen. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #41 February 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteBecause when you think about it, that is the standard you are setting for officers. Yes I expect higher standards to accompany the higher powers given to policemen. Negative. Nice try at a trite little comment, but you're not fooling anyone. We're not talking about standards of conduct. The conduct expected of an officer is the same whether he is on film or not. We are talking about a standard of proof just to prove you're not guilty. That's the direction Captain1976 ad some others are coming from. When you talk about it being ok for the public to film public officers in a public setting, I agree wholeheartedly. When you talk about requiring professionalism, good faith, and integrity from officers, you won't find anyone more for it than I am. When you talk about requiring officers to film their every action just to avoid being accused of nonsense, then you are talking about ridiculous standards. And next time you see video that you think makes officers look bad, be sure that you're educated on what is and isn't proper for officers, then thinka bout teh example I put up a few posts back. Video can help tell the story, but don't ever think it tells the whole story. And for the love of all that's holy, don't think that if it isn't on video then the officer can't prove it.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #42 February 2, 2011 How many officers know EXACTLY where the field of view is on those dash cams... so THEY can get away with crap off camera. Oh no.. that could NEVER happen could it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #43 February 2, 2011 QuoteI think it should be mandatory to video record ALL interactions with the police in this country. Maybe that would keep them a little bit honest. Oh, Hell yes, Hell yes, HELL YES!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #44 February 2, 2011 QuoteIgnorance of the law has never been an excuse... (no timmy, I'm not talking about you) You've heard it before this, right? Is it just me or does anyone else think that this is one of the stoopidest lines ever dreamed up? You expect everyone to know every local, county, state and federal law on the books? I think that idea is full of shit.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #45 February 2, 2011 QuoteHow would you feel about keeping a camera in your car at all times? Would you want to have to film every thing you ever saw before you can say you saw it? Are you going to wear a video camera on your head and carry a mic and recorder running at all times jsut to prove you didn't commit a crime? Because when you think about it, that is the standard you are setting for officers. I think you have misunderstood me. I don't think officers should have to record every interaction they have. I just don't think that private citizens should be prevented from recording those interactions. It is a way for a private citizen to protect himself (or at least give himself recourse for) abuse from public officials."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #46 February 2, 2011 QuoteThe conduct expected of an officer is the same whether he is on film or not. We are talking about a standard of proof just to prove you're not guilty. That's the direction Captain1976 ad some others are coming from. I have no problem with that. In fact, it's a positive thing. When it's your word against his, guess who gets screwed? Do you think LE never lies or bends the truth to fit a story? Video (and audio) would be helpful to your case in some instances. Quotefor the love of all that's holy, don't think that if it isn't on video then the officer can't prove it. ...and that's the point...all it takes is his word...he is assumed in nearly every court that he has no reason to lie and therefore his word is gospel. That's a problem in my book.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #47 February 2, 2011 Quote I don't think officers should have to record every interaction they have. I just don't think that private citizens should be prevented from recording those interactions. It is a way for a private citizen to protect himself (or at least give himself recourse for) abuse from public officials. Abso-freakin'-lutely. I'd be willing to bet that the judge didn't have a problem with news media recording him without his permission, eh? And to who is going to say, "Yeah but that's the news media"...that doesn't trump the citizen doing it.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #48 February 2, 2011 QuoteCrawl back under your bridge, the grownups are talking. glad to provide the thread... (if you have trouble with any of the grownup words - just ask for help)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DiverMike 5 #49 February 2, 2011 QuoteNegative. Nice try at a trite little comment, but you're not fooling anyone. We're not talking about standards of conduct. The conduct expected of an officer is the same whether he is on film or not. We are talking about a standard of proof just to prove you're not guilty of abusing your power I added the of abusing your power to make it a little less trite for you. I do not have the power to detain someone against their will, or search them. A LEO does. I never brought up standard of conduct - you did. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Kennedy 0 #31 February 1, 2011 Crawl back under your bridge, the grownups are talking.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #32 February 1, 2011 QuoteBe that as it may, as someone who works in law enforcement what do you think of the notion that your interactions with the public are "private conversations", and that either deliberately or accidentally recording any police officer, or any officer issuing a ticket or arresting a suspect, should potentially be punishable by life in prison? How is that compatible with America as a free society? Don I am all for recording anything done by a public official acting in their official capacity. I think most states' laws would agree. Public records are public. They are derived from the words and actions of public officials. Seems those words and actions should be public. When I was a cop, I bought my own recording equipment and recorded interactions I thought might get dicey. I did this for my own protection. I was an honest cop and had to endure some baseless complaints. I generally agree that only people who are going to do or say something wrong would have a problem with recording. There are always exceptions, but I think those would be for the protection of minors and such. Not for the protection of the person speaking / acting.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #33 February 1, 2011 Quote I think it should be mandatory to video record ALL interactions with the police in this country. Maybe that would keep them a little bit honest. And I agree. It should be noted, however, that police cams in cars have been used to justify the police actions in more instances than it has been shown to prove the police incorrect. But hey.... I have zero issue recording every interaction with the police. Keeps everyone honest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #34 February 1, 2011 there are always bad examples of everything. single examples are not the basis of large scale decisions. personally, i have nothing to fear from grainy, poor quality, unedited video. it is an additional viewpoint. additional information. video has no self-interest. 10 individuals with cell phones should not be told to stop recording. 10 views. i fear people who fear the truth. in the link i posted, the person with the camera was not interfering, but was threatened. that is a single instance of a bad example who does not wish to be discovered. fear of the facts. the police are paid to defend the public from abusive people. they should welcome that information. good cops hate bad cops. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #35 February 1, 2011 QuoteI am all for recording anything done by a public official acting in their official capacity. That is a little too general. A social working conversing with a child victim of sexual abuse is a public official acting in their official capacity. A lot might have to be redacted from the recording to protect the victim. Now if you add, "in a public setting", I would agree with you. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lurch 0 #36 February 1, 2011 Kennedy those videos... couldn't help but laugh. Darwin in action. *armchair quarterback mode* Those cops owe their lives to the phenomenally stupid "pants falling off ass" style so popular these days. If that guy had been dressed properly, calm and halfway coherent in his actions he could have taken both cops to the head in seconds at that range. On the other hand if he'd been intelligent enough to do that, he would theoretically have been intelligent enough not to get into that situation in the first place. I thought the first cop especially was actually rather slow about it, looked to me like he spent a bit more time assessing the situation as it unfolded than was necessary, certainly gave gankstaboy plenty of time and opportunity to just drop the fucking gun and live after the brief shoving when the guy started trying to walk away. I would have expected gankstaboy to be ventilated by the time he brought his gun up the first time. Homey the ganksta spends more time trying to keep his pants from falling down than he does shooting, in the middle of a freakin close range gunfight. Trying to take a potshot, at a cop, over your shoulder, (under?) while turning your back on two cops and trying to waddle away, hobbled by that stupid fucking ganksta costume. Did society a favor. Cops:1 Ganksta:0 Good shoot. *end quarterback mode* If the gankstas ever smarten up a little, stop dressing like chimpanzees and take their "role" as the opposition a little more seriously your jobs gonna get a lot harder. Of course if they did THAT, maybe they'd be smart enough not to pick a gunfight with the cops.Live and learn... or die, and teach by example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #37 February 1, 2011 Quote And I agree. It should be noted, however, that police cams in cars have been used to justify the police actions in more instances than it has been shown to prove the police incorrect. But hey.... I have zero issue recording every interaction with the police. Keeps everyone honest. Without recording it is almost certain that 100% of those instances would have proven the cops correct because it would have come down to he-said, he-said. Recording is leveling the playing field, does nothing to keep good cops from doing the job correctly."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #38 February 1, 2011 How would you feel about keeping a camera in your car at all times? Would you want to have to film every thing you ever saw before you can say you saw it? Are you going to wear a video camera on your head and carry a mic and recorder running at all times jsut to prove you didn't commit a crime? Because when you think about it, that is the standard you are setting for officers.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #39 February 1, 2011 it seems to be illegal in some places (or being told so) to video events involving police - even if done from a distance and in a non-interfering manner. is this illegal nationally ? if you provide such video to anyone, could you be arrested ? at wffc, i saw a local underage kid get arrested for underaged drinking. 8-10 cameras. no problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #40 February 1, 2011 QuoteBecause when you think about it, that is the standard you are setting for officers. Yes I expect higher standards to accompany the higher powers given to policemen. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #41 February 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteBecause when you think about it, that is the standard you are setting for officers. Yes I expect higher standards to accompany the higher powers given to policemen. Negative. Nice try at a trite little comment, but you're not fooling anyone. We're not talking about standards of conduct. The conduct expected of an officer is the same whether he is on film or not. We are talking about a standard of proof just to prove you're not guilty. That's the direction Captain1976 ad some others are coming from. When you talk about it being ok for the public to film public officers in a public setting, I agree wholeheartedly. When you talk about requiring professionalism, good faith, and integrity from officers, you won't find anyone more for it than I am. When you talk about requiring officers to film their every action just to avoid being accused of nonsense, then you are talking about ridiculous standards. And next time you see video that you think makes officers look bad, be sure that you're educated on what is and isn't proper for officers, then thinka bout teh example I put up a few posts back. Video can help tell the story, but don't ever think it tells the whole story. And for the love of all that's holy, don't think that if it isn't on video then the officer can't prove it.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #42 February 2, 2011 How many officers know EXACTLY where the field of view is on those dash cams... so THEY can get away with crap off camera. Oh no.. that could NEVER happen could it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #43 February 2, 2011 QuoteI think it should be mandatory to video record ALL interactions with the police in this country. Maybe that would keep them a little bit honest. Oh, Hell yes, Hell yes, HELL YES!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #44 February 2, 2011 QuoteIgnorance of the law has never been an excuse... (no timmy, I'm not talking about you) You've heard it before this, right? Is it just me or does anyone else think that this is one of the stoopidest lines ever dreamed up? You expect everyone to know every local, county, state and federal law on the books? I think that idea is full of shit.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #45 February 2, 2011 QuoteHow would you feel about keeping a camera in your car at all times? Would you want to have to film every thing you ever saw before you can say you saw it? Are you going to wear a video camera on your head and carry a mic and recorder running at all times jsut to prove you didn't commit a crime? Because when you think about it, that is the standard you are setting for officers. I think you have misunderstood me. I don't think officers should have to record every interaction they have. I just don't think that private citizens should be prevented from recording those interactions. It is a way for a private citizen to protect himself (or at least give himself recourse for) abuse from public officials."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #46 February 2, 2011 QuoteThe conduct expected of an officer is the same whether he is on film or not. We are talking about a standard of proof just to prove you're not guilty. That's the direction Captain1976 ad some others are coming from. I have no problem with that. In fact, it's a positive thing. When it's your word against his, guess who gets screwed? Do you think LE never lies or bends the truth to fit a story? Video (and audio) would be helpful to your case in some instances. Quotefor the love of all that's holy, don't think that if it isn't on video then the officer can't prove it. ...and that's the point...all it takes is his word...he is assumed in nearly every court that he has no reason to lie and therefore his word is gospel. That's a problem in my book.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #47 February 2, 2011 Quote I don't think officers should have to record every interaction they have. I just don't think that private citizens should be prevented from recording those interactions. It is a way for a private citizen to protect himself (or at least give himself recourse for) abuse from public officials. Abso-freakin'-lutely. I'd be willing to bet that the judge didn't have a problem with news media recording him without his permission, eh? And to who is going to say, "Yeah but that's the news media"...that doesn't trump the citizen doing it.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #48 February 2, 2011 QuoteCrawl back under your bridge, the grownups are talking. glad to provide the thread... (if you have trouble with any of the grownup words - just ask for help)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #49 February 2, 2011 QuoteNegative. Nice try at a trite little comment, but you're not fooling anyone. We're not talking about standards of conduct. The conduct expected of an officer is the same whether he is on film or not. We are talking about a standard of proof just to prove you're not guilty of abusing your power I added the of abusing your power to make it a little less trite for you. I do not have the power to detain someone against their will, or search them. A LEO does. I never brought up standard of conduct - you did. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
