Cop Kills Purple Heart Recipient, Didn’t Turn on Body Camera

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Daily Caller News

Daily Caller News Foundation

A police body camera is seen on an officer during a news conference on the pilot program involving 60 NYPD officers dubbed

Cop Kills Purple Heart Recipient, Didn’t Turn on Body Camera

4:48 PM 12/29/2014

Two Utah police officers responded to a call that an army sergeant had cut himself stepping on glass. They left with the man in a bodybag, a tragic death that could impact police departments across Utah.

A Tooele County Deputy shot and killed an army veteran after responding to a 911 call for medical help Sunday, local news channel KSL reported. Authorities are investigating the shooting that left the Iraq veteran and purple heart recipient, Nicholas McGehee, dead after the deputy fired three shots at him.

The officer is on administrative leave.

Jared Garcia, a lieutenant in the Utah department of Public Safety, is investigating the case. He told The Daily Caller News Foundation that McGehee ignored multiple commands to put down a gun. McGehee then pointed the gun at an officer before he was shot.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/29/cop-kills-purple-heart-recipient-didnt-turn-on-body-camera/

[2naSalit]

1. Okay, so

I have an answer to that problem... the cameras should NOT be controlled by the POs. They should be tamper proof and go ON when the officer starts a shift and can be shut off only after the officer checks out for the day (after reports and all other tasks related to the shift activities). Since they can't seem to bring themselves to turn on the cameras when these atrocities occur.

[Chemisse]

2. Maybe that should be part of a punch-in system

In which they just don't get paid for that day if they don't punch-in and turn on the body cam.

[Feral Child]

6. Much stricter penalties are required.

One months suspension w/o pay for 1st offense. Unless a serious incident occurs during the non-recorded period, that should be punished by suspension for 6 months without pay.

There's a reason they're required to wear them. If they fail, it should be considered prima facie evidence of malfeasance and treated as such.

Needless to say, all armed officers in any jurisdiction should be required to be recorded at all times whilst on duty.

And, please, fan-boys, don't whine about cops on potty-break. They're adults, let's treat them as such. I'm sure we can devise some system to protect they're naughty bits.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

25. They'd have to be sitting naked in front of a mirror.

Body cameras aren't aimed at the crotch of the person wearing them. You go to the bathroom while wearing one, the video footage is going to show a tiled wall or the door of a stall, not your 'naughty bits' or those of anyone else in the bathroom.

[Feral Child]

60. Yes, but there's always some police-apologist

ready to champion THEIR civil-rights. I can't remember which thread, or which fanboy it was, but I actually read one of them objecting to body-cameras on the basis of "But what about when they have to use the bathroom?" Swear to god.

Just wanted to forestall the prattle.

[Chemisse]

67. It's a valid point.

I certainly would not want my private bathroom or break time being taped.

I suggest a pause button on the cameras. Of course there would have to be some penalty for pushing a pause button just before shooting someone (and in fact it could be considered evidence of premeditation).

[Feral Child]

70. FFS

I specifically asked for no-one to post this nonsense.

They have to call "out of service" to go pee. So they call, shut it down, tinkle, boot up, and call back in service.

Need some serious justification for shooting a PoC whilst their pants are around their ankles.

There, you wasted 30 seconds of my life rebutting to your "potty-modesty". Happy?

[Chemisse]

71. Excuse me? I am forbidden from posting my opinions?

Since when are you in charge of what, who and when people can post?

[Feral Child]

86. Stop wasting my time.

I asked, you insisted on rudely ignoring my request with your silly body issues, and you expect me to be polite?

Reread your post. This is passive-aggressive nonsense, insisting that I honor your peepee concerns.

Are you a cop? Then don't worry about it, I doubt if anybody is all that interested in seeing you on the toilet.

I know I'm not, and I really don't want to discuss it with you any further.

[Chemisse]

87. Ahh, a troll.

What a waste of time.

[Feral Child]

88. Ahh, a parrot.

Reading my complaint back at me. Yes, you've wasted my time.

I supplied a reasonable remedy for your silly comment in my 1st reply to your intrusive whining. Even though I'd suggested it was a non-issue in my 1st post in this thread, you had to insist and bring it up. When I rebutted it, AGAIN, you descended into whining about your right to be intrusive, now you're just parroting.

Of course you couldn't answer my reasonable remedy, so instead you've wasted even more of my time setting you straight.

Either get back on topic, answer my rebuttal, or go stalk someone else.

[2naSalit]

7. That could be a workable

solution. I know that when I drove semis, especially gas tankers, had tachographs in some of them. A tachograph is a paper disc that is placed in a box on the dashboard which records on the paper "wheel" all activity of the shift like engine rpms, time, speed, etc. and it looked like the register on a seismograph. If that can be a monitoring tool back the 1980s technology sure can handle security cameras worn by cops who can't be trusted to turn them on while on duty. They keep their radios and cell phones turned on, they can handles these too. And a GPS system for tracking their whereabouts while on duty. Hell, if we could trust the NSA, we could give them the job of monitoring the cops but that's just not going to work out well as things are today.

And to be fair, some of the gun enthusiasts I know argue that they need their guns because of how the police behave... I can empathize with their fears even though I don't agree with their logic.

[Quackers]

9. Qualcomm is big for this.

The trucks I drove had them. They reported in real time my GPS location, speed, engine rpm, and how many hours I'd been on-duty. They also used them to assign new load assignments. I could be in Illinois and recieve an assignment in Kentucky from home base in Ohio, all without talking to anyone.

[branford]

11. You weren't being video recorded and you weren't a public employee.

The latter creates the biggest constitutional concerns.

[christx30]

62. I was thinking that since 90% of police encounters

are going to be an event that will raise the heart rate, find the user's average BPM, add, say 50%. Once that threshold is reached, the camera will turn on, and will remain on for 2 hours.
That way they don't have to sift through 5 1/2 hours of bathroom and driving around or the toilet.

[Chemisse]

78. Interesting idea.

I'm sure there are a lot of ways to solve the problems that can come up.

Some people seem to just want to abandon the whole idea once they reach a problem (such as exposure to the naughty bits - lol).

[christx30]

80. My idea would solve

the naughty bits issue as well. I know resting heartbeat for a healthy adult is between 60 and 100 bpm, and I seriously doubt anyone is going to get above 150 or so when they're going to the restroom.
A Fitbit bracelet can detect the heartrate and can send it to the specialized camera.

[branford]

13. That would probably be unconstitutional

and in violation of the privacy rights of the individual officers, apart from any issues with relevant labor laws and collective bargaining agreements. There is also the concern that it would violate the privacy rights, and even intimidate, suspects, witnesses and bystanders, particularly when the officer is on private property.

The DOJ Recommendations and Lessons concerning body cameras is interesting reading.

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf

[Chemisse]

19. There should not be any right to privacy

When you are on the job. Your employer has every right to watch you at all times (minus break time).

What happens to the video footage could be a source of concern. There would have to be a way to make police encounters available to the public, upon request, if deemed appropriate by - perhaps - a panel of neutral judges.

[branford]

22. The police are public employees, and have certain constitutional rights.

That was decided long ago, whether you and I agree or not.

The break issue is also bigger that it may appear. For instance, must a officer wear the camera while in the lavatory? Remember, the poster suggested that an officer cannot turn of the camera.

Similarly, innocent witnesses and other citizens might not want to be taped, particularly while on private property with constitutional expectations of privacy. Even if you somehow manage to abridge the officer's privacy rights, you cannot do the same with civilians, and a camera that cannot be manually disabled while on-duty is a constitutional time bomb and potential source of near limitless civil liability.

[Chemisse]

26. I am a public employee (teacher).

I am being recorded on tape everytime I walk into the hallway.

Exactly what rights do I/they have?

I would not like being recorded all day while I teach, but I recognize that my employers have a right to do so if they wanted to, just as an administrator could sit in my room all day and watch me. Granted, my union would have something to say about either scenario.

But what Constitutional rights are you referring to?

[branford]

31. Would you object to a camera on your person while in the bathroom?

Speaking socially with your colleagues? Discussing private medical matters concerning of your students? What about the legality of videotaping minors having a conversation that doesn't involve you?

Remember, even if you might not object, those you interact with, and who are not employees, certainly might. You should also ask your union about its opinion concerning truly constant surveillance as well as your fellow teachers. The ability to prosecute and defend grievances might be severely impacted, although administrators might be thrilled. It could even open up the possibility of "unofficial" teacher evaluations and reviews outside of your collective bargaining agreement.

You should read the DOJ study I linked to earlier. Many of the same issues that apply to police would also apply to many public employees, although probably to a lesser extent.

[knitter4democracy]

40. In some schools, there are cameras in the bathrooms.

Just sayin'.

In every school I have taught in, there are cameras in the classrooms including where I teach now. Our contract says that they cannot turn the cameras on, but it's not unusual for a principal to turn them on and turn on our PA system so that he or she can hear what's going on.

Parents sign away their kids' right to privacy in the paperwork at the beginning of the year. We sign away much of our right to privacy as teachers when we sign our contracts. Our contracts always include a morality clause, and teachers have lost jobs over what we post online about our private lives.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think your argument will sway a teacher. We have no privacy.

[branford]

45. You have more privacy than you think,

and if video from the purportedly turned-off cameras was ever used against you, the blow-back would be immense, unless your union is just lazy and incompetent.

You and the parents also sign away a lot less rights than you think. Hopefully there never will be related litigation, but "ambitious" waivers and the like in public settings with public employees often do not survive judicial scrutiny.

In a school setting, the biggest issue is actually the privacy and recording of minors, not the adult teachers. Even as a legal laymen, could you possibly imagine what would happen if an embarrassing video of a young or special needs child was ever publicly released? There would be no union strong enough to protect anyone's job.

In any event, no matter how little privacy you now have, I submit that if you literally had to wear a camera on your person at all times during working hours that you had no way to disable or pause, it would me much, much worse.

[knitter4democracy]

47. Um, where have you been?

Video has been used against teachers. It's not that the unions are lazy or incompetent, more that our hands are tied by state and federal laws. People look the other way when it comes to teachers' rights and always have.

People have been suggesting that we wear cameras on our person at all times, and the reasons it hasn't gone anywhere are financial (the outlay would be huge in a system that already is underfunded) and against the rights of students, not that it violates teachers' rights.

Embarrassing videos of children have been used, just not released publicly that I have heard of. We use those videos every day in determining what happened in that stairwell, at that locker, or in the bathroom. Sometimes, that video becomes part of a court case, but judges usually lock it down so that it can't get released.

Embarrassing videos of teachers have been used and released publicly. Our students videotape us all the time, take pictures, post them online, and we have little to no recourse. I just always ask that they spell my name right. Yes, it's illegal, but no, no one does anything about it the vast majority of the time. It's part of the job these days.

[branford]

54. Your school seems horrible and your union effectively absent.

You have my sympathy. Nevertheless, given your obvious distaste for your diminishing privacy, I'm curious why you appear to advocate or excuse the condition for others in possibly worse circumstances?

Note, however, that I believe body cameras for the police are actually a good and useful idea. I simply believe that firm and clear policies and procedures are necessary for their use to ensure that only material that needs to be recorded is, video is saved with appropriate safeguards and not kept longer than absolutely necessary, and the privacy of both the police officers and general public is properly respected, particularly when on private property.

[knitter4democracy]

55. Of course they deserve some privacy.

My argument is merely that arguing with a teacher about how we supposedly have all this privacy is stupid since we really don't.

As for my school, I'm lucky to be in a great district with a strong union. I teach in Michigan, though, where the MI GOP has gutted union powers left and right and passed all kinds of laws against teachers. It's just the way it is.

My issue with police cams is more that the courts already ignore good video evidence, so I don't see them changing anything.

[branford]

58. We are in agreement that body cameras will not be some panacea to police violence.

Juries, both grand and trial, are extraordinarily sympathetic to police even when video is present. The Eric Garner case is just the most recent example. In the even the Garner grand jury actually issued an indictment, the chances of a jury on Staten Island agreeing on a guilty verdict would have been very, very small.

[Chemisse]

82. I disagree.

This was a particularly blatant case of police violence. I think a jury would have agreed.

But we will never know.

If it is just the officer's word, chances are a jury is going to find him not guilty. Police have always been given the benefit of the doubt, and rightly so, provided they are acting in good faith, doing the best they can under challenging circumstances.

But now we see that many cops are abusing their position of power. That means a cop's word is not enough anymore. We need further evidence, and the body cams will supply that.

Whether a jury will consider the video as important evidence remains to be seen. But I think they will. The pendulum swings.

The status quo is not acceptable. Police self-regulation is not effective. Police training is not adequate. Police 'us against them' culture is not what we want in a democracy.

Just saying that body cams are a bad idea and then leaving it at that is not helping to tackle this problem.

[hack89]

73. The citizens they interact with certainly have a right to privacy

do you really want every thing you say to a policeman taped and recorded forever?

[Chemisse]

75. Yes. If it can save the life of even ONE victim of police violence.

I do, however, expect there would be regulations regarding the release of footage, so that the public can have access to film of key events, but not to information involved in investigations.

[hack89]

81. You must have loved the Patriot Act. nt

[Chemisse]

83. I like privacy. Blacks like to avoid being shot.

Which is more important?

(By the way, I would never consider a conversation with a cop to be private and/or protected in any way. Anything I say will be written in a report and can wind up in a court of law. So I'm not sure what privacy I would be giving up).

[tabasco]

33. Wrong. n/t

[branford]

35. Would you care to expound upon your extensive legal and political analysis,

or address the concerns from the Holder DOJ study?

[Chemisse]

49. I don't think an employer could be afforded the right to watch you in the bathroom

Or while on breaks. Those are your personal times. But I would like to see what Constitutional right prohibits an employer from observing an employee while working.

I'm sure they could include a 'pause' button for the break and bathroom times.

I did go to your link, but it really was way too long and deadly dull. If you think it is valuable for this discussion, you might consider posting it in an OP, and summarize some of the key points.

[jeff47]

53. You have hilarious ideas about privacy rights.

You'll find that being in public means you have no privacy rights.

You'll find that being on private property but still visible from public property means you have no privacy rights.

You'll also find that a police officer entering your private property pretty much eliminates all your privacy rights. Your only protections are restrictions on when they can enter your private property, and how thoroughly they can look around.

You'll also find that employers can make a whole lot of things a condition of your employment. Including the government, as an employer. After all, every single government employee with a security clearance has allowed the government to restrict their First and Fifth amendment rights as a condition of their employment.

[branford]

56. Point by point.

1. One obviously has diminished expectations while in public. I never stated otherwise.

2. That is not exactly true, and actually forms the basis for some regulations and torts, like certain anti-paparazzi statutes.

3. Definitely not true, particularly if you're a witness and not a suspect. Entry onto property with permission also does not provide an implied right to initiate a video recording. No department would even want such a gray area with all the potential legal liability.

4. I certainly never stated that cameras were impermissible. In fact, I explicitly stated that I support their use. My complaint was in reference to the suggestion that an officer should never be able to manually turn off a camera during the entirety of the time while on duty. For instance, I do not see how any department justifies an operating camera while a officer is using the lavatory, and risks filming members of the general public in such circumstances. The DOJ study dealt specifically with this issue.

[surrealAmerican]

28. It wouldn't work.

They'd just start putting things in front of the lenses, or getting them "dirty" somehow.

An officer who doesn't want you seeing what he's doing will figure this out.

[samsingh]

29. that's what it should be - with a realtime feed through bluetooth

[LiberalArkie]

34. The simplest thing is while the camera is being charged at the station it is off

when the camera is removed from the charger it is on. Very simple. I don't think they want it to be easy.

[Travis_0004]

52. Battery technology is not there yet

Cameras have to be off most of the time because a battery wont last all day.

[truthisfreedom]

59. I've read about body cameras that can run for 10 hours continuously.

[TorchTheWitch]

61. bad idea - REALLY bad

There are many many instances where the police have to turn off their body cams to protect someone's privacy. You missed this bit from the article...

"Garcia said because the call was originally for medical assistance, the camera was off when the officer arrived. Officers don't turn on their cameras for medical calls to protect people's privacy."

You can bet there are a load of other privacy reasons they either don't turn their cameras on for or turn them off, and they need to be able to have that ability. We don't throw out peoples' constitutional privacy rights just because an officer doesn't have their body cam rolling, and there's a hell of a lot that the police do on a regular basis for victims where in no way should that victim be filmed especially a child. That footage is public record.

[Just for Fun]

3. I have a serious issue with the link...

It's Fucker Carlson's website. I am not giving him hits.

You certainly remember this bow-tied twit from Crossfire?



Sorry to damage your eyes..

[Xipe Totec]

18. Graphic warning, please.

[FailureToCommunicate]

21. Agreed. Avoid the site. (In future please add a warning when posting disgusting images

okay?)

JK JK

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[Just for Fun]

30. Thanks. I can't stand the little twit

[lunasun]

48. terrible site & fucker indeed

[Turbineguy]

4. A friend of mine's Mother

who was very elderly and suffering from dementia called the (Seattle) police to tell them her son was trying to steal all her money and had even reprogrammed the TV remote control so that she wouldn't find out about it from the news.

My friend showed up too and was not shot or even arrested. In fact, he did not even know, but the Officers had training in how to deal with people who were disturbed, apparently something other than screaming at them and demanding instant obedience before shooting them.

This was about 15 years ago. These Policemen have probably retired since.

The nature of police work is that you deal with people who may very well be in extremis and not thinking clearly. Another thing is that the police should be the champions of the Law, especially including the Bill of Rights.

[uppityperson]

5. People are not horses, they can recover from foot injuries. Those cams should be on,

with no way to turn them off. Period.

[rpannier]

41. As has been pointed out above but I'll hit on it

Some people are sitting in a restaurant eating and having a private conversation
Behind them sit two police officers.
Their 'private' conversation is now being picked up by the recording device

Someone in the bathroom. Police walk in to use it.
That person is now being picked up on the camera

Maybe all those people in the above scenarios are doing nothing illegal, but are doing or saying something that could get them in trouble -- Private meet up between lovers, whatever

What about their privacy rights?
Not being able to turn off the cameras (IMO) negatively affects the privacy rights of society

Or would you argue that people should be more vigilant to the possibility that police are around them and have to curb their private conversations?

If so, then what about undercover or plain clothes police. Do plainclothes officers have to wear them or something similar.
If so, how are we to know they're plain clothes?

[jeff47]

51. You have no right to privacy in a restaurant.

If I can year you, I can record the audio of your conversation.

If I can see you, I can record video of your conversation.

You have no right to privacy in a public place, such as a restaurant. No matter how much you want your conversation to be private.

[rpannier]

63. Fair enough

Last edited Tue Dec 30, 2014, 05:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Though you left out bathrooms and what about plain clothes and undercover

I did come up with something (provided you don't think they should be able to turn them off)
1. What if they're going to meet with an informant who doesn't wished to be on video or recorded at all
2. Police want to talk to me in my office or home and I want the thing off. Can they turn it off?

On last thing on 2nd edit. I've been sharing this link from the Cato Institute. They have been following police misconduct and they update it almost daily.
Good for when discussing with the 'few bad apples' crowd
http://www.policemisconduct.net/

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. Judi...I cannot find any legitimate news source for this stoory.

Only the Daily Caller comes up on Google.

[jakeXT]

10. type "Tooele County"

STANSBURY PARK, Tooele County — An armed military recruiter was shot and killed at his home early Sunday during a confrontation with a Tooele County sheriff's deputy.

About 4 a.m., the deputy and a Utah Highway Patrol trooper responded to a medical call at 34 Marion Dr. in Stansbury Park. When they arrived, they observed an altercation taking place between a man and a woman inside the house.

The deputy and the trooper saw that the man, identified as 28-year-old Nicholas McGehee, had a shotgun, and they escorted his wife to a safe area after she stepped out of the home, said Tooele County Sheriff Frank Park.

As they were doing so, McGehee came to the front door carrying the shotgun, then went back inside and slammed the door, the sheriff said.

As the deputy was walking back toward his vehicle, Park said McGehee "came out of the house again carrying a handgun, pointed the handgun at the deputy. And at that time, the deputy gave him verbal commands to put the gun down, and he didn't. (McGehee) raised the gun, aiming at the deputy, and the deputy shot him."

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=32903088

[ColesCountyDem]

14. Pointing a firearm at a PO is a good way to wind up dead.

Almost guaranteed, in fact.

[branford]

16. We'll just have to pass a federal law demanding that police

become telepathic, precognitive and bullet-proof. Problem solved!

[Chemisse]

20. But did he point a gun at the cop?

Unfortunately we only have the cop's word for this. Recent events have made me realize that a cop's word is just not enough.

[ColesCountyDem]

23. That's what the cited story said.

Read the entire story, not just the excerpt.

[Chemisse]

24. I read the story. I am just not sure I can take the cops' word for it.

[ColesCountyDem]

27. How about the wife's word, or the neighbor's?

According to the neighbor, her drunken husband likely fired a shotgun 3 times, prior to the officers' arriving on scene ( the 3 'booms' he's quoted as saying he heard). She also felt threatened enough to want to leave the scene.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

[840high]

39. Thanks.

[Chemisse]

50. There was nothing in the OP's article about a wife or neighbor.

If there is additional evidence to back up the officer's story, I completely support his actions. He has a right to protect himself from harm.

But with recent events, I no longer regard the word of a police officer as reliable as I once did. If it is JUST the word of the cops, I am going to remain skeptical.

[ColesCountyDem]

65. #8 contains a link to the local news story.

It explains that there's more than just the officers' word.

[Chemisse]

66. Ty

[ColesCountyDem]

68. YW.

BTW, I'm neither reactionary nor naturally disputatious. What I am is someone who graduated law school, passed 3 state bar exams and practiced for some years, before entering the private sector.

I absolutely feel sympathy for the 'victims', but also realize that there is more to the issue than embarrassment or humiliation, and why this law runs afoul of other legal issues.

[Chemisse]

69. You are right. There are many shades of gray.

Our human inclination to make things black or white - right or wrong - is what leads to such extreme polarizations in our society.

Most recently it's the countering of 'black lives matter' with 'blue lives matter'. Seriously? They can't both be true? There is no gray between these two stances?

By the way, nice word: 'disputatious'.

[ColesCountyDem]

72. An almost infinite number of shades of gray.

I absolutely agree with everything you just posted, and thank you for the compliment about my word choice.

As individuals who value personal freedom and civil liberties, we must guard against our natural tendency to want to solve every issue we find problematic or disturbing by drafting new criminal laws. It is vitally important to remember that any new criminal legislation a.) criminalizes behavior that was lawful the day before, b.) creates an entirely new group of criminals out of people who had been (theoretically) theretofore law-abiding citizens and c.) any new criminal statute inevitably raises substantive questions regarding due process and the legality/illegality of the behavior sought to be punished.

[treestar]

76. Interesting. You think it perfectly fair to judge this officer's word

as likely to be wrong because of the actions of other police officers in other jurisdictions in different cases?

[Chemisse]

79. The officer's word is suspect if there is no corroboration.

It might be right, it might be wrong.

If an officer committed a crime (shooting an unarmed person without sufficient reason to think his life is in danger, for instance), he will, just like any other criminal, be likely to lie about it.

[ManiacJoe]

36. Thank you; much better article.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=32903088

[Dustlawyer]

12. The bad thing for the good cops is that the bad ones have been caught lying for so long and so

much, we don't believe the wolf when he cries!
If we keep up the pressure, "A Change is Gonna Come!"

[branford]

15. The cameras still cannot be used as an effective punitive measure against all police,

and the implementation of any camera program must comply with the Constitution.

The DOJ has an informative study entitled, "Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned."

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf

[Spooky69]

17. I dont get why people are so jazzed up about body cameras . . .

Cameras dont mean squat to a jury . Dont believe me ? Ask Eric Garner . . . oh thats right, hes dead .

How about Rodney King . . .

The only thing these new cameras will be used for is to protect police . . . period

[True Blue Door]

32. That's not logic.

Not every prosecutor will pass the buck to grand juries in deciding to prosecute, and not every grand jury will be insane.

Moreover, how is it a bad thing if the cameras are also used to exonerate police who did nothing wrong? Either the goal is justice, or it's to screw the cops.

My concern with the cameras is ensuring that video of suspects not be kept forever, not be used to prosecute anything petty on the part of the general public that wouldn't otherwise have been prosecuted, and not be used to blackmail people (or cops, for that matter) by any kind of interest - business, political, criminal, or internal.

[branford]

37. Once something is on digital video, no less uploaded,

assume it will be around forever, and everyone who you wouldn't want to have a copy will somehow have access.

They even generally keep the fingerprints and DNA on file of those never charged or exonerated of crimes. Why should video be any different.

The thought of the number of vulnerable minors on video alone is troubling.

There are a great many positive qualities of body cameras, for the police, suspects and the public, but like with any new technology, it has its downsides, and someone of questionable or misguided ethics will do something terrible. The Pentagon and corporate giants like Sony and Target can't keep their data safe, I doubt the LAPD (with all those juicy celebrities), no less a sheriff in the middle of nowhere, would stand a chance.

[2naSalit]

38. Indeed...

what becomes of the recorded data is of concern. But I will say this, on occasion I work for one or another federal agency and I sometimes handle sensitive info or considerable amounts of funding elements... the camera is always on though I am not wearing the camera per se. But there's one in every room and I am watched throughout my time on property. Not to mention the serious background check I must endure each time I am rehired.

Why is it that I am on camera all the time? Because it's a public trust concern, same as passing the background check (yes, including my finances) and because I am not the only one present, the public is in close proximity so I see the camera as protection of my actions should a member of the public do something illegal or stupid and tries to blame me for whatever the unpleasant outcome might be.

POs are public servants whether they like it or not. If an individual doesn't like it, find a different line of work. Until the PDs of America can restore the public's trust, they should have no privacy while on duty especially because they are armed and often kill innocent people in their own homes. No exceptions, no exemptions.

[rpannier]

43. What about when they're in a public setting like a restaurant

What are my expectations of privacy as a private citizen who happens to be sitting in a restaurant while police officers are eating?
I may be having a private and sensitive conversation with a friend or co-worker
What are my rights? Or the rights of all those people in the restaurant, grocery store, wherever?
You're filmed inside a work building, not out in the general public

Do you advocate that even plain clothes officers wear them?
Then how am I to know I am sitting near one and my (private and sensitive) conversation isn't being picked up

[2naSalit]

44. Some good points

however, some form of reform needs to take place yesterday. I don't have all the answers nor would I claim to have them. It's a suggestion and I am glad to see some of the points I didn't analyze being brought up for conversation.

What happens to the data already recorded by all those stores with cameras watching the sidewalks? And in the restaurant you eat in, they're already there, and eating at a restaurant is not necessarily considered a private event. I see your point but your objections are already defeated by ubiquitous surveillance by business owners and others. And what about all those live streaming shots of people on the streets, those are observing a protest and not participating? The cameras are everywhere already so how do you control that info?

It's time to hang up and dial again.

[branford]

46. What private companies do with data is very different than the obligations of government.

It's really apples and oranges. It's the NSA snooping on your emails of wiretapping by the FBI versus Facebook's or Youtubes' privacy policy.

In any event, many of the issues are raised and discussed in the DOJ report, if you're interested.

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf

[rpannier]

64. I don't disagree with you. Something needs to be done and like you said

yesterday

The problem I have is how its implemented and the rules.
- If you want to interview someone in their office or home and they want it off, can it be turned off then?
- What if they're meeting an informant who needs to remain anonymous. There are many instances of some police officers on the take and if they got hold of the video would turn the video over to whomever the informant was telling on

It's an important issue that I'd like to see get accomplished quickly and correctly. Too often the focus is on quickly and not on correctly
*cough* Patriot Act *cough*

That being said I will post this link for you. I posted it a few days ago. It's from the Cato Institute (The Libertarian One). They keep tabs on police corruption (which kind of surprised me. I figured them to be the law and order organization)
Usually they update daily. It's enough info to use when discussing with the 'few bad apples' crowd
http://www.policemisconduct.net/

[2naSalit]

74. I don't disagree with what you said either...

I was caught between venting and formulating a set of solutions, albeit not thoroughly thought out, when I posted. My purpose in posting was to spark this very conversation that is taking place a couple decades late in the game. Being a person of not-exactly-pearly-white skin tone, I am often seen as a POC and have suffered many scary interactions with police AND civilians throughout my life. Seeing what is going on everywhere now brings back memories of the domestic terrorism I was subjected to for not looking white enough to leave alone.

Thank you for this link, it is very informative and I recommend that people monitor it regularly. It is, apparently, a daily record of police misconduct though there is a note stating that it not be updated until after 1/1/15. There should be a major dump of info when they start posting again.

I do agree that my suggestions aren't the definitive answer(s) to end this state of affairs but it is at least the consideration of a starting point short of calling the National Guard to take the guns and badges of the nearly 4,000 officers on the NYPD force. I do hold that should it come to such measures, it will be needed across the country with a database to keep track of all the POs, nationwide to ensure they are not allowed to rejoin and that measures are put in place to weed them out should they make it onto some PF somewhere. But I don't see any of that happening now that we have the highest priced government money can buy, apparently we don't have enough $$ or access to OUR $$ to get that job done... because politicians can only hear those with diamond cufflinks, like that dog whistle thing that only dogs can hear. It's why nonwealthy citizens never get elected.

I thank everyone who responded to my rant with suggestions and pointing out weak spots in my developing solution suggestions. This kind of discussion is preferred to all the ranting, raving and shooting. I do hope this sort of exercise in Democracy wins the day when the dust settles.


Due to my issues with traumatic stress, I need to get off this specific topic for a spell so I can regain composure.

[rpannier]

42. You left out the homeless guy who was tazed to death by 4 cops

They had that whole episode on film and they were acquitted

[treestar]

77. Not working in the Garner case doesn't mean they always won't

And the officer knows it is on so that means it's not just his or her word.

It could help a great deal. This attitude is about making the perfect the enemy of the good. They don't work all the time, so let's never use them. That's unnecessarily negative.

[Chemisse]

84. I agree.

In addition, awareness is growing about police violence. Juries that always assumed the cops were right - video be damned - may be starting to see things from a different perspective.

I was blissfully unaware of much of this until recently. I thought Rodney King was beaten by rogue cops in a bad police department. Each time something was publicized, this was what I thought. And when the cops said a shooting was justified, I nearly always believed it.

My attitude started to change a couple of years ago. There was a case - In Brooklyn perhaps? of a black man shot on his wedding night. It just didn't make sense that it went down the way it was reported. And there were a few of these cases that came up and caused me to wonder how pervasive police brutality really was.

Then this summer, with Ferguson, and with the associated publicity about other killings of unarmed black men, I finally realized how dangerous it is - and always has been - to be black in an encounter with the police.

Many future jurors may be undergoing the same change right now.

[roamer65]

57. Next excuse after "it wasn't on" wears out.

"It got broken in the arrest".

All cops are liars.

[Sunlei]

85. "pics or it didn't happen" Cops can hang a bit of toilet paper over the cam when they go pee.