Should All Police Officers Have Chest-Mounted Cameras?

Forbiddenbiker

Forbiddenbiker

The Enforcer
Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,048
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
Cool way to sort the wheat from the chaff I think.... In LA over the pond a few forces have been doing it, hits are up and statistics show a massive drop in complaints against officers.

But the cynic in me has already decided the videos captured will probably go missing when we want them as evidence....so we'll have to carry our own.

In the meantime this idea could seriously help our officers gather evidence and defend themselves against malicious accusation.

Or is this a bad idea?
 
More expense when forces are having to cut numbers to keep within budget.
 
On the whole I think it a good idea, with one proviso.I do like the idea of not having to reply so much on 'he said/she said' type scenarios. I dislike the idea of senior officers using them to make on the spot orders. Can you imagine someone giving a fire/don't fire order from afar and removing responsibility from the officers at the scene?

gramps said:
More expense when forces are having to cut numbers to keep within budget.
Click to expand...


They're not exactly expensive - £200 or so at most
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
They're not exactly expensive - £200 or so at most
Click to expand...

£200 times the number of officers equipped plus spares times batteries times charging of batteries times servicing times downloading and storage of video data....
 
Steep said:
£200 times the number of officers equipped plus spares times batteries times charging of batteries times servicing times downloading and storage of video data....
Click to expand...


vs costs, (both monetary and impact on the force) of every complaint........... and £200 and officer + storage etc is not alot of cost....is it?
 
We already do! I've carried one for over a year now, and other forces are rolling them out.
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
More expense when forces are having to cut numbers to keep within budget.
Click to expand...
Steep said:
£200 times the number of officers equipped plus spares times batteries times charging of batteries times servicing times downloading and storage of video data....
Click to expand...

Its really cheep overall Id guess, the police spend millions on far more expensive ideas that are half as useful... I know of one huge depot built and 'never used' only to be demolished again years later....chucking it away they are.

mrgubby said:
maybe because people aren't lying about the Police anymore as there is video evidence ?
Click to expand...

So you're suggesting the reality is, all those who complained before are liers and trouble makers and none of them had a valid complaint?

Are you really sure it's not more likely that some officers have reined in their attitude, come on!?

boyfalldown said:
On the whole I think it a good idea, with one proviso.I do like the idea of not having to reply so much on 'he said/she said' type scenarios. I dislike the idea of senior officers using them to make on the spot orders. Can you imagine someone giving a fire/don't fire order from afar and removing responsibility from the officers at the scene?
Click to expand...

Playstation policing, or judge dredd, what to choose! ...You so right, although there's also an advantage argument, more intelligence and on scene visual aid can help greatly too Id imagine ... The victims squashed at a fenced-in football game for example.

odd jim said:
We already do! I've carried one for over a year now, and other forces are rolling them out.
Click to expand...

Do you use yours daily Jim. Are you asked to use them all the time or is it just personal preference?

---
I like the idea of them being used non-stop when in action so to speak, but I don't like the idea of officers being countered later on revew over trivial public discrepancies like catching a kid smoking weed and binning it down a drain with a heavy ear full instead of arrest like the law says.
 
Last edited:
Forbiddenbiker said:
So you're suggesting the reality is, all those who complained before are liers and trouble makers and none of them had a valid complaint?

Are you really sure it's not more likely that some officers have reined in their attitude, come on!?
.
Click to expand...

And you're suggesting that it was all Police Officers :thinking:
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Its really cheep overall Id guess, the police spend millions on far more expensive ideas that are half as useful... I know of one huge depot built and 'never used' only to be demolished again years later....chucking it away they are.



So you're suggesting the reality is, all those who complained before are liers and trouble makers and none of them had a valid complaint?

Are you really sure it's not more likely that some officers have reined in their attitude, come on!?



Playstation policing, or judge dredd, what to choose! ...You so right, although there's also an advantage argument, more intelligence and on scene visual aid can help greatly too Id imagine ... The victims squashed at a fenced-in football game for example.



Do you use yours daily Jim. Are you asked to use them all the time or is it just personal preference?

---
I like the idea of them being used non-stop when in action so to speak, but I don't like the idea of officers being countered later on revew over trivial public discrepancies like catching a kid smoking weed and binning it down a drain with a heavy ear full instead of arrest like the law says.
Click to expand...

Yep, use mine daily, it's personal issue. It's up to me when and where I use it, but generally I'll activate it for every incident I go to.
 
boyfalldown said:
On the whole I think it a good idea, with one proviso.I do like the idea of not having to reply so much on 'he said/she said' type scenarios. I dislike the idea of senior officers using them to make on the spot orders. Can you imagine someone giving a fire/don't fire order from afar and removing responsibility from the officers at the scene?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the current units record to memory in the unit and are not live linked to any senior officer, so the current proposal of body mounted cameras won't really work in the way you envisage.
 
....in the near future though Dave, not far off, now really, everything will stream to anything so its worth considering all ramifications could happen.

mrgubby said:
And you're suggesting that it was all Police Officers :thinking:
Click to expand...

lol, No, Im pretty sure I'm just talking about the officers who have complaints against them ... but I would like to adjust that to those that have 'excessive' complaints against them.

odd jim said:
Yep, use mine daily, it's personal issue. It's up to me when and where I use it, but generally I'll activate it for every incident I go to.
Click to expand...


Cool, so, I have to ask. What would happen if someone you arrested or disagreed with asked for a video copy of your meeting.
 
Last edited:
We have them on the Isle of Wight. Possibly the whole of Hampshire Constabulary has them but I don't know/

I think they are a good idea and they would be of benefit to both sides in case of a disagreement.


Steve.
 
Dave1 said:
I'm pretty sure the current units record to memory in the unit and are not live linked to any senior officer, so the current proposal of body mounted cameras won't really work in the way you envisage.
Click to expand...


Atleast some of the current, commercially available units have wireless capability. Its not beyond the wit of man to suggest that a live feed is possible, or indeed would be used.
gramps said:
There's a simple answer to that ... stop pandering to all the bleeding heart 'liberals'.
Click to expand...

You mean ever body who complains about the police is pandered to? I think the cameras would do a fantastic job of defending false allegations, but equally allowing speedy resolution of genuine ones. Where theres controversy then you'll quickly be able to shut that down. I don't see thats pandering.
 
boyfalldown said:
Atleast some of the current, commercially available units have wireless capability. Its not beyond the wit of man to suggest that a live feed is possible, or indeed would be used.
Click to expand...

While something can be possible it can be quite improbable, first the bandwidth of servicing say 1/3 of the Met at 10 000 cameras at any one time makes it quite unlikely (just for London with over 30 000 officers, excluding City of London and BTP officers). This would also work on the supposition that the cameras work in 100% of the country, including inside all buildings and in underground parking garages and places like the London Underground.

Not to mention having the facilities and staff to monitor 10 000 cameras....
 
boyfalldown said:
You mean ever body who complains about the police is pandered to? I think the cameras would do a fantastic job of defending false allegations, but equally allowing speedy resolution of genuine ones. Where theres controversy then you'll quickly be able to shut that down. I don't see thats pandering.
Click to expand...

The call for cameras is being made as a result of the Duggan shooting - people like those who support his case will never be placated by cameras or anything else ... have you seen the news footage of this afternoon's 'vigil'? The sad thing is that the 'authorities' will bend over backwards to placate these people and ignore the majority of society who abhor gun-toting lovers of violence and gang culture.
 
Dave1 said:
While something can be possible it can be quite improbable, first the bandwidth of servicing say 1/3 of the Met at 10 000 cameras at any one time makes it quite unlikely (just for London with over 30 000 officers, excluding City of London and BTP officers). This would also work on the supposition that the cameras work in 100% of the country, including inside all buildings and in underground parking garages and places like the London Underground.

Not to mention having the facilities and staff to monitor 10 000 cameras....
Click to expand...

now envisage a situation, (like the one I first described) which was what I was very against. Where you have a few officers dealing with a situation and a senior officer taking all control and responsibility away from each officer. Like in a tense firearms situation and giving a fire/don't fire order remotely. Bit like I described really. But you knew that. Didn't you?

Of course 10,000 wouldn't be possible to monitor. But 10000 SD cards would be possible to view either. They'd only be viewed when there was an call for it
 
gramps said:
The call for cameras is being made as a result of the Duggan shooting - people like those who support his case will never be placated by cameras or anything else ... have you seen the news footage of this afternoon's 'vigil'? The sad thing is that the 'authorities' will bend over backwards to placate these people and ignore the majority of society who abhor gun-toting lovers of violence and gang culture.
Click to expand...


Really? thats a situation where cameras may of helped......but the news stories I've seen about them and officers already carrying them aren't doing so in response to that incident.

You call it bending over backwards to placate - I say its a few pragmatic words in an effort to avoid a further £133m bill.
 
boyfalldown said:
Like in a tense firearms situation and giving a fire/don't fire order remotely. Bit like I described really. But you knew that. Didn't you?
Click to expand...

To clarify that as well, a senior officer can't order an officer to fire/not fire (or even to arrest/not arrest). That decision is wholly at the discretion of the officer involved.
 
Dave1 said:
To clarify that as well, a senior officer can't order an officer to fire/not fire (or even to arrest/not arrest). That decision is wholly at the discretion of the officer involved.
Click to expand...


So when I said I wouldn't like that taken away you decided to argue because.......?
 
This call for cameras arises from the Duggan shooting ... his supporters wouldn't be satisfied with video footage either.
 
gramps said:
This call for cameras arises from the Duggan shooting ... his supporters wouldn't be satisfied with video footage either.
Click to expand...

They would be making allegations that the footage had been doctored if it showed events they didn't like.
 
boyfalldown said:
Atleast some of the current, commercially available units have wireless capability. Its not beyond the wit of man to suggest that a live feed is possible, or indeed would be used.


You mean ever body who complains about the police is pandered to? I think the cameras would do a fantastic job of defending false allegations, but equally allowing speedy resolution of genuine ones. Where theres controversy then you'll quickly be able to shut that down. I don't see thats pandering.
Click to expand...
Once it's been recorded it can't be deleted, and it's automatically downloaded when the device is charged.

Ironically there are calls for this to become the norm, yet in my experience the public hate it when I record them whilst dealing with them!

I've also had three malicious complaints against me totally disproven from the footage it's captured.
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
Can't see that satisfying the critics :thinking:
Click to expand...
The use of body worn video by officers isn't to pacify the public, let's be clear about that. It's an evidence gathering tool for the officer.
 
While I think the benefits are great. When used to support an officer's actions, decisions or behaviour.
The negatives for such would worry me though.
We are already in a culture when an unconnected superior can dictate judgement from afar, and after the fact, and with hindsight.

Imagine if you will, a scenario :
An officer is in an altercation with an unpleasant member of the public (For this example, we'll use the vernacular "Scrote" :D)
Tension rises and a scuffle breaks out in which the officer responds with a hefty hoof to the clackers and a frontal lobe collision 'pon the nostrils of said scrote.
Now, most sensible and right-thinking citizens witnessing this would view the response as perfectly justified in order for the officer to execute his duty.
A week later, said scrote files a complaint, regails the tale of defending himself against an aggressively attacking officer.
Two sides to the story, and if the truth of events be on the side of the officer, it could still easily be argued and convinced the other way, even with video evidence.

Independent commissions, panels, and police superiors review the information they have from the safety and comfort of their warm offices and with the benefit of hindsight. That's not to mention any ulterior motive (for example, PR, pressure from above....cost cutting etc etc)....as a result it's found the officer was too aggressive and he has to suffer whatever consequences follow.

The officer knows he was right, witnesses know he was right, even the scrote knows he was right, but the interpretation of the situation by those after the fact may be contrary to what really happened.

tl;dr >
Scrote is a scrote
Scrote is being scroty
Scrote needs slap
Copper slaps scrote
Bystanders cheer
Scrote complains
Copper says "he deserved it"
Bosses watch video
Bosses go "Nope, that wasn't very nice....you're fired"


Thats a hell of alot of waffle there actually for a simple explanation :p
 
Marcel said:
Imagine if you will, a scenario :
An officer is in an altercation with an unpleasant member of the public (For this example, we'll use the vernacular "Scrote" :D)
Tension rises and a scuffle breaks out in which the officer responds with a hefty hoof to the clackers and a frontal lobe collision 'pon the nostrils of said scrote.
Now, most sensible and right-thinking citizens witnessing this would view the response as perfectly justified in order for the officer to execute his duty.
A week later, said scrote files a complaint, regails the tale of defending himself against an aggressively attacking officer.
Two sides to the story, and if the truth of events be on the side of the officer, it could still easily be argued and convinced the other way, even with video evidence.
Click to expand...

This already happens with conventional CCTV.
 
Dave1 said:
They would be making allegations that the footage had been doctored if it showed events they didn't like.
Click to expand...

Much like the folk on the other you tube thread saying what a nice man the polis was!
 
odd jim said:
The use of body worn video by officers isn't to pacify the public, let's be clear about that. It's an evidence gathering tool for the officer.
Click to expand...

As far as the 'call' for video cameras to be worn, I think that depends on which side of the fence you sit!
However, let's imagine all officers 'involved' with the Duggan shooting had been wearing video cameras ... what would have changed, for a) the officers and b) for the Duggan 'family' and supporters?
 
gramps said:
... have you seen the news footage of this afternoon's 'vigil'? The sad thing is that the 'authorities' will bend over backwards to placate these people and ignore the majority of society who abhor gun-toting lovers of violence and gang culture.
Click to expand...

I think the Vigil was about the criminals skin colour, some black people feel that he wouldn't have been shot if he was a white man, they suggest correctly I think that those darker skin tones can influence perceptions negatively, they recognise that black skinned people have been treated unequally in the passed and unconsciously can and do act defensively in manor and character because of it. In essence they recognise the fact that there defensive behaviour can look like they are guilty of something and this does or can influence all of our judgments from time to time.

I support the point of the vigil and think they are onto something that's important to debate through ....but, I think its very Ironic they chose to ride a criminals bow wave so as to make a valid point about negative misinterpretations when Id guess 80% of the white population think they are protesting on behalf of a criminal. ...Daft idea all in all, all passion and no long term strategy!!

odd jim said:
The use of body worn video by officers isn't to pacify the public, let's be clear about that. It's an evidence gathering tool for the officer.
Click to expand...

Why should we be clear about that? Does it matter? You are the public too you know, your children will be, the world is what WE make it right now! I see all of our actions and opinions as part of the pot making the world we live in, we should ask what are we doing, what are you making for our world right now when you separate yourself from the public world in this manner? (Edit. sorry. not meant to be rude at all)
We all want the best police force in the world and we want our officers to be respectable and awesome, and we'd all have trust in any evidence gathering tools being considered for the use of us all to maintain excellence, nothing less than that would do us all true justice I feel.

gramps said:
This call for cameras arises from the Duggan shooting ... his supporters wouldn't be satisfied with video footage either.
Click to expand...

Well thats not the reason I started this thread, its was the 'threat' thread and my own personal experiences which concurred with that threads majority outrage which made me ponder if openly accessible video could be the solution for all discrepancies.

Funnily I don't think a video of events surrounding that criminal being shot would have helped the police defence at all, the majority public don't understand the subtle differences between talking the talk and walking the could be shot dead any millisecond walk...plus a dozen more worries in not shooting a passer by by mistake, I mean this is people packed London not anywhere with space for bullets to ricochet and fall to ground for example.
 
Last edited:
Forbiddenbiker said:
I think the Vigil was about the criminals skin colour, some black people feel that he wouldn't have been shot if he was a white man, they suggest correctly I think that those darker skin tones can influence perceptions negatively, they recognise that black skinned people have been treated unequally in the passed and unconsciously can and do act defensively in manor and character because of it. In essence they recognise the fact that there defensive behaviour can look like they are guilty of something and this does or can influence all of our judgments from time to time.

I support the point of the vigil and think they are onto something that's important to debate through ....but, I think its very Ironic they chose to ride a criminals bow wave so as to make a valid point about negative misinterpretations when Id guess 80% of the white population think they are protesting on behalf of a criminal. ...Daft idea all in all, all passion and no long term strategy!!
Click to expand...

Some black people have indeed been treated unequally in the past, of that there is no doubt, but they are not alone, so have some white people ... e.g. Ian Tomlinson wasn't black and he wasn't involved in the reason why the police were on the streets that day but it still cost him his life! (Though here is a case where without the video footage, although not from the police, it would probably never have seen the light of day).
It would be interesting to see the comparable statistics for street crime as a split between white/black to see whether, for example, there is any reason for a perceived 'unequal' treatment - I know that there was in the past but I don't know what it is currently, or even if it's 'politically correct' anymore to keep such statistics.

Forbiddenbiker said:
Well thats not the reason I started this thread, its was the 'threat' thread and my own personal experiences which concurred with that threads majority outrage which made me ponder if openly accessible video could be the solution for all discrepancies.

Funnily I don't think a video of events surrounding that criminal being shot would have helped the police defence at all, the majority public don't understand the subtle differences between talking the talk and walking the could be shot dead any millisecond walk...plus a dozen more worries in not shooting a passer by by mistake, I mean this is people packed London not anywhere with space for bullets to ricochet and fall to ground for example.
Click to expand...

This is the difference isn't it, where it really matters it probably wouldn't help at all.
 
Marcel said:
...

The officer knows he was right, witnesses know he was right, even the scrote knows he was right, but the interpretation of the situation by those after the fact may be contrary to what really happened.
Click to expand...


But was he right?

Look I know the old school methods where good and have their place, I grew up in that world, my old dad would be surprised if I didn't get a thick ear of a copper for mucking about and promptly give me one, and then go and complain as to why the copper hadn't. ....I chose not to chastise my son, Instead I realised it was lack of communication that had been my deceiver, and I tried full bandwidth communication to bring him up instead....worked for me, but not all kids are the same right.
I'm wittering on about him because I recognise my own lackings when it comes to losing my temper, before my son I didn't think rationally, I though like my dad taught me!
So I think I've learnt that by modifying my chastising reactions I could still have all the discipline but finish with a son who doesn't see physical chastisement anywhere near the top of his solution list.
What Im trying to say is we are smarter than ever before they say, violence does beget violence doesn't it, leading by example is the method that works it seems, so surely we must embrace the aims of our progressing civilization and not hang on to traditional ideas of discipline for sake alone?
 
gramps said:
This is the difference isn't it, where it really matters it probably wouldn't help at all.
Click to expand...


No i agree, not at all, Hacker was right In the other thread, they should say deep n detailed how it all really was/is!

Whole other interesting debate your first point isn't it, I do feel I see a minority of black people damaging their own image often, stuff like calling themselves nigger just seems like they are cutting themselves on purpose, dunno, their is some sort of begrudging 'shoulder chip' that is actually being supported as cool in somes attitude's to others, especially white people it seems cos i am the one getting it in my face init. ...I dunno, often think its maybe me being pre-conceived judgmental, but then I see it again and again so it seems real enough.
 
Last edited:
As I see it, if all officers wore and used them routinely it would help to protect both the public, from certain police officers, and the vast majority of good police officers, from false allegations.
But what if the technology fails, as it sometimes must?
What if a complaint is made and it turns out that the incident wasn't recorded after all?
Rightly or wrongly, allegations would be made about a police cover up. There are very strong suspicions that this has happened in the past, for example when a can of soft drink somehow got itself poured into a CCTV camera at Stockwell, but if every officer wears a body cam then these allegations will surface reguarly, rightly or wrongly, and will perhaps make the public perceptions of police misconduct even worse.
 
Equipment will fail from time to time and other things may go wrong. However, there is a need to avoid falling into the trap of doing nothing just because a perfect solution cannot be found. Half a loaf is better than no bread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top