Cops Wearing Body Cameras Are More Likely To Be Assaulted

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Cops wearing a body camera makes it more likely they'll be assaulted. What!?!?! That makes absolutely no sense at all. So you wear the camera in case there is an assault, but wearing the camera causes a 15% increase in attacks versus not wearing one? :eek:

A large-scale analysis of body-camera usage among police officers in the US and the UK has produced some rather unexpected and counter-intuitive results, showing that body-worn cameras have a tendency to increase assaults on police. At the same time, discretionary use of cameras increases an officer’s tendency to use force.
 
People fought so hard to get the body cameras, but now that there has actually been an increase in crime they're trying to build the narrative that they're not effective to use. I think that the people originally fighting for the cameras believed that they were going to expose rampant corruption and overreach by the police, but now that it is working against that purpose then, well... We have to get rid of them.
 
The increase in crime could be a consequence of no longer as easily sweeping crime under the rug. I do not believe cameras on police increase the amount of bullshit happening, but the police probably have to act as to not be implicated as ignoring duty. Thus reporting crime that would otherwise go unreported.
 
haven't read the article but could it possibly be a misinterpretation of the results (aka didn't count in the uptick in the reporting of said assaults because for one, w/o a bodycam, the officers who are assaulted may not necessarily report)

also, it IS gawker media so clickbaity articles are the norm
 
Armenius said:
People fought so hard to get the body cameras, but now that there has actually been an increase in crime they're trying to build the narrative that they're not effective to use. I think that the people originally fighting for the cameras believed that they were going to expose rampant corruption and overreach by the police, but now that it is working against that purpose then, well... We have to get rid of them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think they're just upset that the cameras are revealing what those little cell phone videos usually leave out... that the suspect usually attacks first.
 
I would bet that cops in small towns or places with low crime have 15% fewer camera wearing cops. I bet this is a causation correlation thing.
 
Also heard right before the assault.
*cough*
WORLD STAR!
*throwing my hands up in the air*
 
athenian200 said:
Yeah, I think they're just upset that the cameras are revealing what those little cell phone videos usually leave out... that the suspect usually attacks first.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think its a great idea. Assault a cop, get shot and get your dumb ass posted on youtube as a bonus.
 
As always(and as is especially the case with any Gawker media outlet), read the study(specifically the discussion portion) if you want to know what it *actually* said.
 
I find this to be really really questionable and it probably is a result of a more accurate record of what actually happened rather than an increase in sort of criminal activity.


Gawker


Oh right.
 
Going off that quote alone It makes sense to me:

-Cop is wearing a camera: perp sees it, gets aggressive hoping to provoke the cop into what the media will label 'police brutality'

-Cop isn't wearing camera: cop will be aggressive because they can get away with it
 
Why don't they make these hidden and say some cops may have a camera. That way you don't know if they have one or not.
 
If that article is true, then I'm sure people would just be paranoid and attack them all anyway. You'll just have less evidence then.

Edit: Oh wait, nm. I read that wrong. Nevermind what I said then.
 
Disclaimer - I didn't read the article.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, have you ever seen what happens when you put a camera in front of a stupid person's face? Their IQ drops about 20 points instantly as they mug for the camera and generally act like a jackass on a live newscast.

So as Sonicks stated, a cop without a camera can and will get away with more. A cop with a camera is probably more likely be antagonized by an idiot with parental or mental issues.

I like the idea of concealing the cameras. That seems like an obvious middle ground.
 
File said:
The increase in crime could be a consequence of no longer as easily sweeping crime under the rug. I do not believe cameras on police increase the amount of bullshit happening, but the police probably have to act as to not be implicated as ignoring duty. Thus reporting crime that would otherwise go unreported.
Click to expand...

Maybe, and it sounds plausible, but that is not what this article is saying is it?

So let's go a bit further.

Now that you have a cop with a camera on that is forcing him to deal properly with law breakers, more people are getting jacked up over the little shit, it's pissing them off, and they are assaulting the officers over it cause the officers can't let them slide any more?
 
its saved to a sd card, then transferred to a server.... how else?
 
Steve said:
Cops wearing a body camera makes it more likely they'll be assaulted. What!?!?! That makes absolutely no sense at all. So you wear the camera in case there is an assault, but wearing the camera causes a 15% increase in attacks versus not wearing one? :eek:

A large-scale analysis of body-camera usage among police officers in the US and the UK has produced some rather unexpected and counter-intuitive results, showing that body-worn cameras have a tendency to increase assaults on police. At the same time, discretionary use of cameras increases an officer’s tendency to use force.
Click to expand...
WORLDSTARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR, that's the only "reason" I can think of....
 
Sonicks said:
Going off that quote alone It makes sense to me:

-Cop is wearing a camera: perp sees it, gets aggressive hoping to provoke the cop into what the media will label 'police brutality'

-Cop isn't wearing camera: cop will be aggressive because they can get away with it
Click to expand...

Actually it's the cops reaction to having the camera that changes, not the perp.
Cop is wearing a camera. The cop is overly careful not to do anything that might portray him in a bad light.
The perp takes this as a sign of weakness and attacks the cop.

If the Cop isn't wearing a camera, he can be more aggressive toward the perp (language, physical, etc.)
The Perp decides he better not mess with this cop.
 
They probably checked 10 cops on two different days and on the second day one got assaulted by some drunk guy and his partner got spit on so it counted as half an assault. So that's probably how they came up with 15% increase.
 
You'd hope that they have better standards than that when analyzing... sadly, I can believe that that is definitely a possibility.
 
Suddenly, statistics change drastically once video evidence is considered.


"news"
 
The researchers also found that rates of assaults against officers equipped with cameras were, on average, 15 percent higher compared to when they weren’t wearing the cameras. It’s possible that officers felt more confident about reporting assaults once an incident was recorded on camera, thus making them more inclined to report it.
---

THIS I would believe...
 
pothb said:
Well, that just means the cops have evidence so their counter attack is more easily justified.
Click to expand...
It could also mean they weren't reporting as many "assaults" as before.

Lay a hand on a cop, he pops them one with the night stick and puts them in cuffs. That person was likely going to jail for something else already. Maybe he didn't report it because it wouldn't stick or to save his pride that he let the criminal get the upper hand.

Now, you lay a hand on a cop, he pops them one and puts them in cuffs, then charges you with both crimes because he has to.
 
Retronym said:
There is a delete key built into every keyboard.
Click to expand...
From my experience.... the system is set to auto record when they use their lights. And most cops don't really know the difference between a touch pad and a mouse.
 
Armenius said:
People fought so hard to get the body cameras, but now that there has actually been an increase in crime they're trying to build the narrative that they're not effective to use. I think that the people originally fighting for the cameras believed that they were going to expose rampant corruption and overreach by the police, but now that it is working against that purpose then, well... We have to get rid of them.
Click to expand...

tin foil hat... really who are these "they're trying to build a narrative"? The massive and rich street criminal lobby flooding the capital? Coolio and the gangster paradise coalition (don't forget opener Kaiser Soze)? Please.

Sure, I could see embarrassment in reports that police use of force didn't change and most was proven warranted... but the study was actually interesting. On average use of force didn't change compared to camera free, BUT odds went up when the camera wasn't used and down when it was (they didn't say specifically but sounded like the surge offset the reduction).

The 15% increased attacks on police officers is certainly a big issue. Curious as why, which needs more investigation. Article mentioned with the camera they were shy of asserting themselves, or more confident in event reporting the assault. It is possible citizens "felt in the right" and attacked (aka crazy in the head).

Bottom line is police cameras are good for everyone imo. While I do think some cops might be hesitant to use force when needed, in fear of misinterpretation of a video... I can't see how that can be worse than just the errant bad info spread now adays. Hopefully some cops can be put away and some defended to give everyone more confidence. The police can use the cameras as evidence which should hopefully even the playing field especially in racial situations.
 
nutzo said:
Actually it's the cops reaction to having the camera that changes, not the perp.
Cop is wearing a camera. The cop is overly careful not to do anything that might portray him in a bad light.
The perp takes this as a sign of weakness and attacks the cop.

If the Cop isn't wearing a camera, he can be more aggressive toward the perp (language, physical, etc.)
The Perp decides he better not mess with this cop.
Click to expand...

Got it in one.
 
dandirk said:
tin foil hat... really who are these "they're trying to build a narrative"? The massive and rich street criminal lobby flooding the capital? Coolio and the gangster paradise coalition (don't forget opener Kaiser Soze)? Please.

Sure, I could see embarrassment in reports that police use of force didn't change and most was proven warranted... but the study was actually interesting. On average use of force didn't change compared to camera free, BUT odds went up when the camera wasn't used and down when it was (they didn't say specifically but sounded like the surge offset the reduction).

The 15% increased attacks on police officers is certainly a big issue. Curious as why, which needs more investigation. Article mentioned with the camera they were shy of asserting themselves, or more confident in event reporting the assault. It is possible citizens "felt in the right" and attacked (aka crazy in the head).

Bottom line is police cameras are good for everyone imo. While I do think some cops might be hesitant to use force when needed, in fear of misinterpretation of a video... I can't see how that can be worse than just the errant bad info spread now adays. Hopefully some cops can be put away and some defended to give everyone more confidence. The police can use the cameras as evidence which should hopefully even the playing field especially in racial situations.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also it could be an intimidation factor. Many people lose their mind when they realize they are being filmed for any reason (queue the drone camera fights) so it is also possible that simply knowing they have a camera in their face might be unsettling it causes a problem sooner. Just speculating.
 
evilsofa said:
It's perfectly obvious what's happening here. The officers with body cams are reporting the assaults instead of punishing those who assault them and then reporting neither of the assaults. Why is anyone having a hard time figuring this out?
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is pretty much how I interpret the data...
 
I disagree with that analysis in the OP. I suspect, speaking from experience, it has to do more with you catching a break from the police officer before wearable cameras. I have no data to back that up but personal experiemce.
 
cop with camera is on best behavior
criminal or unruly persons see best behavior as weakness
criminal or unruly persons ALWAYS push cops to the limit anyway, now finding much farther limits they push very far, very fast
criminal or unruly persons think they are getting away with something when they 'assault' officer who is on best behavior, get arrested as usual BUT a new twist:
cop with camera wins.

its kind of going to be the reverse of what the cops have had to deal with all of time with random people taping them, waiting and sometimes trying to get the cops to go too far.
 
This study doesn't jive with other studies so I'm going to assume there's a flaw in the methods, I'll go with the theory that police resort to writing incident reports rather than take matters into their own hands when cams are involved, so incident reports go up and police brutality goes down.

Other results for comparison:

San Diego police body camera report: Fewer complaints, less use of force
Complaints have fallen 40.5% and use of "personal body" force by officers has been reduced by 46.5% and use of pepper spray by 30.5%, according to the report developed by the Police Department
Click to expand...

Considering Police Body Cameras
The results of the study appeared conclusive: “shifts without cameras experienced twice as many incidents of use of force as shifts with cameras,” and “the rate of use of force incidents per 1,000 contacts was reduced by 2.5 times” overall as compared to the previous twelve-month period

...

This dramatic reduction in the use of force indicates that body-worn cameras may have had a “civilizing” effect on officers, as the presence of a camera appeared to drastically lower the frequency with which officers “resorted to the use of physical force — including the use of OC spray (‘pepper spray’), batons, Tasers, firearms, or canine bites.”
Click to expand...

California police use of body cameras cuts violence and complaints
after cameras were introduced in February 2012, public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers' use of force fell by 60%.

...

Cameras made officers more careful about using force. "It's still part of the business, they still do it. But now they make better use of what we call verbal judo."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Funny thing is, when you start filming them they start with their abuse of powers bullshit by saying you are not allowed to film them and if you dont stop they kindly stop you by grabbing your phone or pushing you so that you drop your phone or by arresting you on some trumped up bs charges.

All cops should have to wear video and voice recording devices that records their entire shift without allowing the officer to stop, pause, fast foward/rewind and delete etc, as no matter what country you are in every single cop has abused their powers to some degree at some point in their careers and tamper proof recording devices would go along way in making them smarten up their attitudes towards the general public.

As for the rise in assaults, it will be down to what has already been mentioned, the stats are only rising because its now easier for the courts to proceed with the prosecution because it has video evidence but in reality the assaults are still the same just that the conviction rate has increased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top