NYPD to Start Testing Body Cameras on Police Officers

Who the hell assumes a number like 2/3rds could ever remotely be realistic?

no shit. it's probably much higher than that if you include the cops who know about corruption but do nothing.

If thats the case then you should have no problem sourcing oh lets say, 5000 incidents of police corruption alone today. Hell that should be easy if two fucking thirds of cops are corrupt. 2/3rds, lol... just lol if you really believe that.

If suddenly all the decent (that may be too strong a word) cops were to go public with their knowledge of corruption within the system it would be way more than 5000.
 
This is a nice little investigative research paper made by law students regarding Chicago's police department. It a little bit long but try skimming and check out pages 20-22 and the graphs on the last few pages. ALL data was taken from police records. Records the police themselves refused to study.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/brokensystem-111407_0.pdf

TLDR:

From 2002-2004 there were 10,149 *official* complaints against Chicago officers for Brutality, Illegal Search, Sexual Harassment,Abuse, Rape,Racial Abuse, Planting Evidence, False Arrest. Complaints for other types of abuses were not counted nor studied. It is estimated only 1 in 10 people who could have had valid complaints actually filed them.

Out of those 10,149 complaints only 19 of them ended with an officer getting any meaningful punishment.
The department leadership not only chose to ignore even the worst (i.e most complaints) officers but it actively tried to not know about them.

A very large percentage of the complaints were dismissed without *any* type of investigation.
 
Or perhaps the accounts of two officers who tried to do the right thing and report bad cops:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/05/51969.htm

Don't think ^this^ is uncommon among most if not all police departments.


If they have nothing to hide why not have cameras? It could help a cop avoid being accused of doing something wrong that they did not do. Of course the bad cops will not want to have cameras.
 
2/3rds? How about we just say 90% are corrupt. Hell 95%. Lets just pull numbers out of our ass all day long. Who the hell assumes a number like 2/3rds could ever remotely be realistic? If thats the case then you should have no problem sourcing oh lets say, 5000 incidents of police corruption alone today. Hell that should be easy if two fucking thirds of cops are corrupt. 2/3rds, lol... just lol if you really believe that.
I approximated that 2/3rds are "either bad or complicit in hiding bad behavior for the sake of the brotherhood", which if anything is likely far too conservative, but it was to make the point that it leaves plenty of actual good cops that do report every illegal or unprofessional action from fellow officers they see to do good things. Its very unlikely that one in three officers haven't bent or broken the law or witnessed either and reported it immediately to internal affairs, as that number is likely closer to the 1-3% mark.

In any case, Robble's links pretty much show it and explain why... you break that "brotherhood" and you're on your own or worse get harassed, and your career in the department is in extreme jeopardy for rocking the boat.
 
So to summarize officers fired upon an escaping suspect (although if he's running lets not bother calling him a suspect) whom they did NOT know what unarmed (how could they ever possibly know this if he's fleeing?), fired only enough rounds to subdue him instead of killing him, and a terribly tragedy that could happen ANY TIME you fire a weapon occurred. Since the shooting was justified and the father dying was purely an accident, he continues to be employed today, although not in his original district.
No, they KNEW he was UNARMED.
If you bothered to read my post instead of trying to justify the actions of a reckless individual you would have known that.
Unless lives are at stake, you don't fire unless you HAVE TO.
Trigger happy individuals should have no place in police departments, but often wind up there anyways.

How would you feel if a police officer fired into a crowd of peopke, killing 3, trying to apprehend a purse snatcher?
 
How would you feel if a police officer fired into a crowd of peopke, killing 3, trying to apprehend a purse snatcher?

Then the purse snatcher would be charged with 3 counts of murder of course. (seriously, he would)
 
Wow, people in this thread are really afraid of authority figures for a bunch of weird, made up reasons that cover up deep, psychological processes and can't see around them at all. :( So much for humans ever growing up as a species.
 
Then the purse snatcher would be charged with 3 counts of murder of course. (seriously, he would)

That just happened a few days ago too. The police were shooting at a suspect, killed a girl in the process, and charged the suspect with her death. Crazy, crazy.
 
No, they KNEW he was UNARMED.
If you bothered to read my post instead of trying to justify the actions of a reckless individual you would have known that.
Unless lives are at stake, you don't fire unless you HAVE TO.
Trigger happy individuals should have no place in police departments, but often wind up there anyways.

How would you feel if a police officer fired into a crowd of peopke, killing 3, trying to apprehend a purse snatcher?

How do they know he was unarmed?

The shooting at a fleeing suspect is per the rules. Do I agree with it? No not really, but it's not a trigger happy cop, it's just the training that says this is what you do. Their aggressive training needs to be looked at and questions need to be asked as to why shooting someone who is running away is considered appropriate. I'm sure the police have an answer that have probably never considered before since they have experience with this sort of thing.

The office did not fire into a crowd of people, they fired at a lone suspect in the street and a stray bullet penetrated a house. This can happen ANY TIME a police officer discharges his gun. How would you feel if an officer missed his shot aiming at Adam Lanza during the Sandy Hook massacre? The question is irrelevant since both situations deemed the use of deadly force. The only problem you have here is that they used deadly force in a circumstance in which you feel they should not, however since you have no authority to discuss police tactics it's safe to say you have no idea what you are talking about, but I'll leave the door open for discussion.
 
That just happened a few days ago too. The police were shooting at a suspect, killed a girl in the process, and charged the suspect with her death. Crazy, crazy.

This isnt crazy at all. You think the cops want that kind of guilt on their conscience? The cops are seen as a tool for law enforcement. If I jump out of my car at a high rate of speed and the car smashes into a crowd of people, do I say "hey I didnt kill anybody, the car did"? Punishing a criminal for the act of the cop is meant to illustrate that the criminal is the reason the "weapon" (in this case the cop) was deployed, and if that "weapon" hurts anybody then it is the fault of the criminal and not the "weapon".
 
You aimed the car towards the crowd, the cop aimed his gun towards an innocent person.
 
Expect the unforseen ....

.... and it may end up being the cops who want them in the end
Not to invalidate all videos, but way too many 'police abuse' video seem to start only after the "victim" is subdued and police have the upper hand.
 
What you have here is called "results oriented thinking", otherwise known as hindsight. These police shootings arent some random occurrence by some blood thirsty cop who would otherwise be a serial killer if he didnt have a badge. They are all the result of training that specifically says this is how to handle these situations. If you think cops are too quick on the trigger then you need to look at their training and not the cop.
Right, like how they have a tendency to kill the mentally ill for not being compliant.
 
Wow, people in this thread are really afraid of authority figures for a bunch of weird, made up reasons that cover up deep, psychological processes and can't see around them at all. :( So much for humans ever growing up as a species.
The government is not your friend, and no they are not here to help.
 
i wonder how much video footage is suddenly lost because the camera "malfunctioned". but good thing anyway imo

In previous attempts to put body camera and microphone on policy in New Jersey, that is exactly what happened... AT FIRST.

However once the police understood the technology and how it protects themselves from faulse complaints, the damage stop and accepted.

The same thing happened with cameras in the cars. They resist and eventually accept it.

Remember how would like a camera on you while you worked. A camera which was review periodically. Your boss could see you on the Internet, talking on the phone, and doing many other things other than working. What if your boss used these minor breaks as an excuse to fire you and ruin your career.

That is the reason the police are skeptical of this technology. Not the actual technology but the Human component of how it could be used to RUIN their career for taking a long lunch, running by home while on patrol for something forgotten, taking extra time with a victim, and many other situations which fall 100% out of policy.

Remember police are humans too which have to deal with the least saviory people in our society. They have families and like everyone else want to keep their job.

So... next time you are screwing off at work reading HardOCP... think about how different it would be if your boss had a camera on you and would fire you if one rule was broken..... That is how the police feel in the beginning when wearing a camera.
 
So to summarize officers fired upon an escaping suspect (although if he's running lets not bother calling him a suspect) whom they did NOT know what unarmed (how could they ever possibly know this if he's fleeing?), fired only enough rounds to subdue him instead of killing him, and a terribly tragedy that could happen ANY TIME you fire a weapon occurred. Since the shooting was justified and the father dying was purely an accident, he continues to be employed today, although not in his original district.

So they shot someone that posed no direct threat to them (arent they only supposed to draw their guns when they are in a "life threatening" situation?) and shot him in the back(side).... :rolleyes:

Yeah I want those guys in my town... NOT.
 
So to summarize officers fired upon an escaping suspect (although if he's running lets not bother calling him a suspect) whom they did NOT know what unarmed (how could they ever possibly know this if he's fleeing?), fired only enough rounds to subdue him instead of killing him, and a terribly tragedy that could happen ANY TIME you fire a weapon occurred. Since the shooting was justified and the father dying was purely an accident, he continues to be employed today, although not in his original district.

Lets flip the script here a second. If I were in my home, an armed intruder entered my home, I fired on said intruder striking and killing him. BUT, one of my rounds missed its target going through the wall of my house, entering my neighbors house and striking and killing my neighbor. Do you honestly think I would not be brought up on charges? Of course I would. And you know this. I would be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Never, EVER discharge your firearm without knowing your target and what is beyond it.

But, you know, police are supposed to held to a higher standard. That is, unless they are involved in a crime themselves. Then they are protected from prosecution. This is what happens when the wolves investigate the wolves for killing the chicken.
 
To elaborate on the scenario above. A good friend of mine did 5 years in prison for defending himself. He was beaten unconscious several times. After coming to, with a shattered eye socket and jaw, was able to retrieve his firearm from his inner waistband and fire on the assailant. He struck the assailant 3 times in the torso. The fourth round missed and hit a lady 150 yards away in her leg. He was charged with felony assault with a firearm and convicted for hitting that lady in the leg. No charges were brought up over shooting the assailant.

Spare me the LEO rhetoric.
 
Wow, people in this thread are really afraid of authority figures for a bunch of weird, made up reasons that cover up deep, psychological processes and can't see around them at all. :( So much for humans ever growing up as a species.

What should we do with them?
 
should be mandatory

turning the statists logic back on them...if they don't have anything to hide they don't have anything to worry about

Agreed, should be mandatory, the protection works both ways :p
 
Umm, local cops are not "agents of the state". They are agents of your local government, not the State or the federal Government. Furthermore, I can understand the big city mentality toward cops, big cities are cesspools and both the people and the cops who live in them live in cesspools. But in small town USA, the cops are our neighbors, their kids are in the same class with our kids, etc.

Still, to cameras are good and will work both ways.
 
To elaborate on the scenario above. A good friend of mine did 5 years in prison for defending himself. He was beaten unconscious several times. After coming to, with a shattered eye socket and jaw, was able to retrieve his firearm from his inner waistband and fire on the assailant. He struck the assailant 3 times in the torso. The fourth round missed and hit a lady 150 yards away in her leg. He was charged with felony assault with a firearm and convicted for hitting that lady in the leg. No charges were brought up over shooting the assailant.

Spare me the LEO rhetoric.

Shooting people is not part of your job description. Thats why a cop can get away with it and you cant. You know what else you will be prosecuted for? Pursuing someone at 90mph. The police can do it, but you cant. Nobody said the police are expected to be held to some mystical higher standard, they are simply held to a DIFFERENT standard. An F-16 pilot just dropped a bomb on a house and killed 20 innocent civilians in the surrounding area, do we prosecute him as a serial killer?
 
All footage should be recorded by a third party or made available online to the public.

No fucking way. Imagine the day the cops knock on your door at 3AM, drags you and your wife from your sleep because your kid is in some shit. Good bad or mistaken, you think you want that crap out there for everyone in the fucking world to see, your not thinking it through.

First put your face in that picture frame, imagine that although you are a decent enough guy, it might not be at the best of times or under the best of circumstances. Now imagine the news linked in pulling it off immediately and it's posted and in people's twitter feeds before the cops even leave your house.

be fucking careful what you wish for ;)
 
Shooting people is not part of your job description. Thats why a cop can get away with it and you cant. You know what else you will be prosecuted for? Pursuing someone at 90mph. The police can do it, but you cant. Nobody said the police are expected to be held to some mystical higher standard, they are simply held to a DIFFERENT standard. An F-16 pilot just dropped a bomb on a house and killed 20 innocent civilians in the surrounding area, do we prosecute him as a serial killer?

Shooting people is not part of the police job description either. It's a byproduct of protecting the public from criminals. The officer was negligent in his actions for not identifying what was beyond his target. Plain and simple.

And, yes, I am authorized to shoot people. It's called my basic human right to self defense and my right to keep and bear arms for such a purpose. Unless you are one of those that believes I have no right to defend myself.
 
I love this Ducman69

With the militarization of our police, encouraging greater and greater aggression in our police, its worth the tiny expense.

Can you explain what this is? I think I know what you think it is, but I want to hear it from you.
 
Can you explain what this is? I think I know what you think it is, but I want to hear it from you.
You know exactly what it is, so not sure why you're pretending to be naive.

The overuse of SWAT tactical units in particular and responses with military style equipment and tactics, such as no-knock warrants using flashbang and tear gas grenades, assault tactics, with uparmored helmeted soldiers using assault rifles, not dissimilar to how our troops clear homes in Afghanistan and Iraq hunting insurgents and terrorists are a prime example.

Since 2006, according to the Times, a sampling of the combat gear received by state and local law enforcement agencies includes, in addition to assault rifles, body armor and grenade launchers: 432 mine-resistant, ambush-protected armored vehicles; 435 other armored vehicles; 93,763 machine guns; and 44,900 night-vision binoculars and goggles.

Do 432 American cities really need mine-resistant armored vehicles? Do American police departments really need 93,736 machine guns?

But even non-SWAT police forces are becoming more and more aggressive, with military type street blockades, asking civilians for ID without cause, often resorting to unwarranted vehicle searches, to a readiness for police to taser and pepper-spray civilians when they are confronted with even a minimal amount of attitude or lack of cooperation.

You recall the police running through the school recently waving assault rifles in people's faces decked out in armor and causing teachers and students to cower and blockade themselves in a building because a faculty member was walking outside with an umbrella after it had just rained.
 
Can you explain what this is? I think I know what you think it is, but I want to hear it from you.
BTW, since I have taken the time to reply, I would now ask for an explanation for why you find the concept of the militarization of our police force so comical?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/militarization-police

4452e163bc2aa9f5bf60097b74286b65_vice_630x420.jpg


Does that look like a police uniform to you? Looks like something someone in the military would wear.
 
Does that look like a police uniform to you? Looks like something someone in the military would wear.

I applaud any police department willing to go to the extent of making sure that their officers are safe from and better equipped than the awful people they have to try to keep under control. Though, they really need the kinds of drones the military uses to get rid of people without having to actually be in harm's way.
 
The overuse of SWAT tactical units in particular and responses with military style equipment and tactics, such as no-knock warrants using flashbang and tear gas grenades, assault tactics, with uparmored helmeted soldiers using assault rifles, not dissimilar to how our troops clear homes in Afghanistan and Iraq hunting insurgents and terrorists are a prime example.

So perhaps the thinking is that this kind of use actually greatly lessens the risks of gun fire. The target has very little time to react, the officers are able to stabilize the situation faster and thereby prevent people from being shot on both sides of the fence.

As for that cute picture I don't have a problem with it.

Neither the color of their uniforms and hardness of their hats magically transform a cop into a soldier. They have not received military weaponry with the exception of SWAT teams. But more
importantly our city cops are still citizens of our city. They are our neighbors and if you want to defend yourself against the Police State then your best defense is to learn who these normal people are and make friends because for the most part they are all good normal people with families and for the most part they joined because they want to help people. Cops got to put up with a lot of shit whether you realize it or not.

First officer in that photo right up front, is that vest any more protective then the ones they wear under their normal duty uniforms? The shirts and pants they are wearing came free, donated by the Military, your taxes paid for them your cops might as well get them. Better then selling them for nuthing to some Iraqis. Cops usually have long guns in their cruisers, used to have shotties locked to the dash, now they usually are locked in the trunks. But the ARs are usually semiauto and not full auto except for SWAT/HRT type teams. So at what point do you think these cops are soldiers?

Because they don't knock when they think their target could be dangerous?, please.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I suggest you move out of those cesspool cities so books like the one you recommend become moot.

The ENTIRE New Jersey Turnpike was a cesspool city?

Dude, you are so fucking programmed that I bet you shit American Flags............
 
I applaud any police department willing to go to the extent of making sure that their officers are safe from and better equipped than the awful people they have to try to keep under control. Though, they really need the kinds of drones the military uses to get rid of people without having to actually be in harm's way.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
 
I agree with the general sentiment of the thread.

At the same time, Bloomberg seriously cleaned up NYC. A lot of that was from controversial policies like stop-and-frisk, which have dubious constitutionality but actually make some sense in low-income or crime-ridden areas. "Progressive" Bill de Blasio may seriously undermine the well-oiled machine (meaning the city as a whole, not just the police) that Bloomberg created. Hopefully he's secretly pragmatic and sensible enough to recognize that his rhetoric can't be implemented wholesale in the real world.

Interesting that such a staunch libertarian lets his iron-clad morals waiver when said rights are looking to be extended to low income areas. No money, no speech, no rights, amiright?

So perhaps the thinking is that this kind of use actually greatly lessens the risks of gun fire. The target has very little time to react, the officers are able to stabilize the situation faster and thereby prevent people from being shot on both sides of the fence.

Except, it assumes perfection of SWAT/police and doesn't account for going to the wrong place and causing a confrontation with an innocent citizen. Further, there needs to be a happy medium between officer safety and innocent until proven guilty. Bulldozing homes with tanks and shooting everyone they come into contact with would make officers safer, as well; that isn't the ultimate goal.

So at what point do you think these cops are soldiers?

When they have the weapons, equipment and attitude to treat citizens as enemy combatants, rather than US citizens, innocent until proven guilty, whom they should interact with as such.
 
Interesting that such a staunch libertarian lets his iron-clad morals waiver when said rights are looking to be extended to low income areas. No money, no speech, no rights, amiright?

That's pretty much always the way it was and will be because that's the way humans work. If people go tearing down an establishment to make some new order, they find out they end up with the same old stuff under a different set of names. Colonial America's rebellion from the crown is a fine example of that very thing. A bunch of rich guys rejected the idea of paying their fair share when the tax incentives were going away so they roused the rabble to fight for them using typical wartime propaganda. It worked pretty well while the population didn't realize they'd just gone to war to support an upper class of business men rather than royalty but as education (sorta) got better people got aware enough to get upset again; which is where we are now. What I wanna know is when humans will move past the destruction and cost of lives for selfish and pointless revolutions into a new, transcendent intelligence where they can step back and figure it out just by thinking a little. Some of us got there already, but a lot of people are too busy getting suckered into someone else's great new rebellion idea to have bothered to turn on their brains and figured out they'll only mess everything up to end up right back at where they started before they were screaming and waving signs at people who are just trying to do their jobs.
 
So perhaps the thinking is that this kind of use actually greatly lessens the risks of gun fire.
Statistics show that over 80% are just used for search warrants (often unwarranted) of small time drug distribution, such as marijuana. The reason for the no-knock isn't safety of the officers and civilian, but of not allowing the civilian time to destroy (usually flush) the evidence. Such SWAT teams have even been used in cases of illegal file sharing (someone suspected of torrenting some movies and the like) or non-violent offenders like gambling, which is quite ridiculous. In over 30% of the raids, no evidence linked to the original search is found, and quite often there are reports of police then tearing through the home to try and find something illegal to justify their actions.

Unfortunately, in the chaos of such a military style assault on a home, far too often a home owner or family pet is injured or shot.

No one would argue with the extremely rare usage and limited numbers of such "special forces" for hostage situations in bank robberies where you need sharp shooters and what not, but not for regular mundane non-violent offenders, especially when its just a suspicion or anonymous tip.

The real problem is the war on drugs and 9/11, where the fear mongering created the Department of Homeland security, with a tremendous amount of tax funds directed to it which have to be spent. In the last 10 years, the DHS has given out over $35 billion (Billion with a B) in grants, which allows even smaller localities to invest in nonsense like armored vehicles for their police departments. And once you have all of these machine guns and tanks and what not, you have to put it to use, which means the police stations get ready to kick some ass and FIND a reason to go rambo on their towns.
 
Back
Top