Police complaints drop over 90% after deploying body cameras(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Police complaints drop over 90% after deploying body cameras
https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/03/police-complaints-drop-93-percent-after-deploying-body-cameras/
313 comments
In many cases, the police doesn't care that they are being filmed. There's this new documentary coming out called Do Not Resist, and there was an article on the WSJ about it with the following quote "The most disturbing thing is that it simply doesn’t occur to the sheriff that the footage might be disturbing. He has no problem letting a film crew show this massive contraption built to withstand roadside bombs in a military convoy lumbering through his small town, because the notion that military vehicles aren’t appropriate for domestic policing is foreign to him."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/09/30/...
I'm a little surprised that in the article, and in the comments here, there's such a presumption of guilt on the part of the police.
I understand that this is a controversial topic in the US, probably moreso than elsewhere, and for very important reasons, but is it really impartial for the study, the article, or the comments here to draw the conclusion that police were "better behaved" because they were being filmed?
Maybe the public were better behaved when they being filmed.
Maybe the police were, in some cases, behaving as they normally do but the public were less inclined to raise complaints that may have been spurious as they knew there was evidence of the actual exchange.
I don't doubt that behaviour of individual officers is a factor and was likely affected in a positive way here, but I'm deeply skeptical that a 93% drop in complaints is solely down to bad police officers playing nice for the cameras.
The presumption of innocence needs to be a two-way street, surely?
I understand that this is a controversial topic in the US, probably moreso than elsewhere, and for very important reasons, but is it really impartial for the study, the article, or the comments here to draw the conclusion that police were "better behaved" because they were being filmed?
Maybe the public were better behaved when they being filmed.
Maybe the police were, in some cases, behaving as they normally do but the public were less inclined to raise complaints that may have been spurious as they knew there was evidence of the actual exchange.
I don't doubt that behaviour of individual officers is a factor and was likely affected in a positive way here, but I'm deeply skeptical that a 93% drop in complaints is solely down to bad police officers playing nice for the cameras.
The presumption of innocence needs to be a two-way street, surely?
I wonder how much of the effect comes from the cameras and their perception, and how much comes from the oversight that the study itself provides.
And how long it's going to last.
We are all on our best behavior when somebody's, but it typically doesn't last forever. Eventually the effect wears out.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, I'm just skeptical of long term numbers outside of studies. Still, if it reduces complaints and incidents, it'll well be worth it.
And how long it's going to last.
We are all on our best behavior when somebody's, but it typically doesn't last forever. Eventually the effect wears out.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, I'm just skeptical of long term numbers outside of studies. Still, if it reduces complaints and incidents, it'll well be worth it.
Since this study is from the UK where (at least in London) it feels like there are cameras pretty much everywhere...I wonder if a citizen concerned with police abuse could get a sort of citizens warrant to tap into these feeds to make their case?
Or maybe automatically track police with these cameras with some sort of recognition system and have a review board do sample tests on the material in some way? Are those alternatives that are considered (compared to body cameras)? I like the general psychological notion of "adding extra surveillance of citizens creates extra surveillance of the state forces as well". Might even serve to create some sort of "enough surveillance" balance.
How does access to security cameras generally work? You can get access to the material for court cases to defend yourself, right?
How does access to security cameras generally work? You can get access to the material for court cases to defend yourself, right?
This bit is as interesting as the headline:
> there was no significant difference in complaints between officers wearing cameras that week and those going without.
> there was no significant difference in complaints between officers wearing cameras that week and those going without.
I welcome anything which reduces the sense of police citizens and non-police citizens being on different sides, or in some sort of opposition.
A similar trial in the UK had similar results recently
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/29/police-with-...
A similar trial in the UK had similar results recently
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/29/police-with-...
There has been extensive research on recording physicians during patient care. The results almost unanimously conclude that recording physicians improves performance, quality, and compliance [1].
[1] http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1673991
[1] http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1673991
Maybe another explanation is that many complaints are false and people stop complaining when they know they can be proven lying? Just like proliferation of smartphone cameras virtually eradicated any UFO sightings.
The thing is when the novelty aspects wears off, people (policemen and citizen) will tend to forget that they are being recorded. A bit like people are outraged that the NSA is recording them naked on skype. But a year later they would be back at it again and wouldn't even think about it.
That's how many documentaries are made. You follow a guy with a small camcorder, the guy knows he is recorded, behaves, but it is impossible to curb his attitude for too long and after a few weeks you start capturing natural reactions, he sort of forgot the camera.
Smart people will do a better job at keeping in mind that they are watched, but the sort of people involved in confrontations with the police, whichever side is at fault, is more often than not not smart.
So would be curious to see the real long term effect.
That's how many documentaries are made. You follow a guy with a small camcorder, the guy knows he is recorded, behaves, but it is impossible to curb his attitude for too long and after a few weeks you start capturing natural reactions, he sort of forgot the camera.
Smart people will do a better job at keeping in mind that they are watched, but the sort of people involved in confrontations with the police, whichever side is at fault, is more often than not not smart.
So would be curious to see the real long term effect.
I wonder how many of those "stopped" complaints would have been frivolous or made in hopes of cash settlement. Even if only a few percent, body cameras seem like a no brainer, good for everyone. Except to corrupt people (on both side of badge).
It is trite, but oversight certainly curbs abuse of power.
> Against all expectations, there was no significant difference in complaints between officers wearing cameras that week and those going without.
Is no one else alarmed by this? Maybe I'm jaded by A/B testing, but if the A doesn't win or lose to the B, then I generally chalk up the effect as exogenous. Could it not be something else - anything else - that changed the number of police complaints from one year to the next?
Is no one else alarmed by this? Maybe I'm jaded by A/B testing, but if the A doesn't win or lose to the B, then I generally chalk up the effect as exogenous. Could it not be something else - anything else - that changed the number of police complaints from one year to the next?
Oh gee, you mean to tell me the criminals in uniform out there to "serve and protect" us suddenly stop violating our rights when they MIGHT be held accountable? I say "might" because there is still no guarantee since the blue wall of bullshit is quite dense.
93% is an absolutely staggering statistic. No other change to police policy even comes close. And the beauty of it is that in addition to hopefully clamping down on bad cops, it also has the delightful use of protecting and exonerating the good ones who receive knowingly false complaints from people who are just being spiteful against cops that arrested them.
93% is a number that cannot be ignored. This, alone, is reason enough to justify the cost to get every single cop in this country suited up with a camera. It keeps everyone in check and acts as expert testimony that produces (in most cases) crystal clear memory of events for everyone to examine.
As a white male growing up in a very diverse area with a fairly high percentage of minorities, I never really believed those who claimed seemingly unbelievable stories of police mistreatment and excessive force. I had never personally experienced it, nor even bore witness to it at any time. I thought they were all lying through their teeth to stick to a claim of innocence and how the police steamrolled them. Now, looking back, I am left wondering how many of those stories were true. And I grew up in the 90's! I can't even imagine what really went on in the 60's and 70's.
Far too often we see videos detailing out horrible acts by law enforcement. Acts that if anyone without a badge were commit, EVEN IN SELF-DEFENSE, would in many cases land us in jail for a very, very long time. I wonder how many people I grew up with have criminal records today simply because they weren't the correct skin color.
93% is an absolutely staggering statistic. No other change to police policy even comes close. And the beauty of it is that in addition to hopefully clamping down on bad cops, it also has the delightful use of protecting and exonerating the good ones who receive knowingly false complaints from people who are just being spiteful against cops that arrested them.
93% is a number that cannot be ignored. This, alone, is reason enough to justify the cost to get every single cop in this country suited up with a camera. It keeps everyone in check and acts as expert testimony that produces (in most cases) crystal clear memory of events for everyone to examine.
As a white male growing up in a very diverse area with a fairly high percentage of minorities, I never really believed those who claimed seemingly unbelievable stories of police mistreatment and excessive force. I had never personally experienced it, nor even bore witness to it at any time. I thought they were all lying through their teeth to stick to a claim of innocence and how the police steamrolled them. Now, looking back, I am left wondering how many of those stories were true. And I grew up in the 90's! I can't even imagine what really went on in the 60's and 70's.
Far too often we see videos detailing out horrible acts by law enforcement. Acts that if anyone without a badge were commit, EVEN IN SELF-DEFENSE, would in many cases land us in jail for a very, very long time. I wonder how many people I grew up with have criminal records today simply because they weren't the correct skin color.
It's quite strange that the article immediately jumps to the conclusion that is (only) the police that is behaving better.
Why don't they even pose the possibility that the people being policed, knowing there is a camera, either behave better or at least, knowing there is a camera, don't make false claims about police mistreatment, knowing that the police now has proof about what really happened?
Why don't they even pose the possibility that the people being policed, knowing there is a camera, either behave better or at least, knowing there is a camera, don't make false claims about police mistreatment, knowing that the police now has proof about what really happened?
I'd wear a body camera simply to protect myself against false accusations.
[deleted]
Specifics on how exactly this is happening are unclear.
Is the officer less confrontational to begin with,
avoiding escalation? Or are suspects and complainants
more wary of their conduct? Is it some combination of the
two, or are even more factors involved? To determine
these things would be a far more complex and subtle piece
of research, but the study does suggest that officer
behavior is probably the most affected, and that other
effects flow from that.
I suspect this sort of irrational behavior is most frequently displayed against the police officer, but in some cases can be caused by officers (they are people too). The only distinction between officers and non-officers being frequency of experience dealing with confrontation.
Despite the behavior being completely irrational (often out of control) there remains a fear of accountability. Will video evidence go out to your parents, spouse, coworkers? How embarrassing, right? The magic is that this fear of accountability is immediately present. The irrational behavior has to ramp up, similar to rage, and so is not spontaneous. This indicates the accountability fear is a constant reminder to not embarrass yourself, particularly when there is evidence that will appear on YouTube.
A related headline from this morning: Not One New York Police Officer Has a Body Camera
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/nyregion/despite-national-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/nyregion/despite-national-...
It is very sad that we've (had to?) militarize our police force in America to such a degree that there's really no going back. I don't fear the police, only an interaction with them. Despite the cameras it seems no one is safe from escalation and death. Even with cameras we will only see the aftermath. Someone will still be dead.
My inner statistics alarm goes off when I read such a high percent ( 90+ ) change. If this were my study I'd really need more data? Etc
Whether or not you agree with police violence, oversight, or power, body cameras are the best way we have right now to document exactly what is going on.
If the courts decide to change how the police interact with the public, it will probably be on the data of thousands or millions of minutes of body camera footage. At that point the court can make a very clear decision: Do we want this to continue? Because with the footage it will be (more) clear exactly what is going on.
If the courts decide to change how the police interact with the public, it will probably be on the data of thousands or millions of minutes of body camera footage. At that point the court can make a very clear decision: Do we want this to continue? Because with the footage it will be (more) clear exactly what is going on.
I want to see these on politicians.
Along with body cameras better training and specialized units to deal with those suspects who are ostensibly mentally ill would save a lot of time, money and lives.
30 UK police subduing a mentally ill man carrying a big knife: https://youtu.be/cX5CPx4RKWw
30 UK police subduing a mentally ill man carrying a big knife: https://youtu.be/cX5CPx4RKWw
I wonder whether body cameras on people would have the same effect?
We really should have body cameras on our politicians.
I'd like to see this for security in general e.g doormen/security/bouncers
It seems that the body cam often "falls off" just before the cops tase, beat the shit out of, or kill someone.
Police unions will fight cameras. They will do cute, pilot programs in certain neighborhoods to fool us.
I would like to see all police officers be required to have a cam on(at all times)while on shift. It would just be like carrying a gun.
"If you don't want to carry a gun---you just can't be a police officer. No Andy Griffith's on this force. Times have just changed. We carry guns-- we carry cams! If you do well on the test, and pass the psychological; you're hired. Good Luck. We hope to have the best, brightest, and most ethical on board."
It will never happen because police departments are so scattered across the US, and know one is ultimately in charge.
(On at all times. No covers for cams. One the whole time while on shift. Maybe a bathroom break exclusion, but I feel that would abused.)
I would like to see all police officers be required to have a cam on(at all times)while on shift. It would just be like carrying a gun.
"If you don't want to carry a gun---you just can't be a police officer. No Andy Griffith's on this force. Times have just changed. We carry guns-- we carry cams! If you do well on the test, and pass the psychological; you're hired. Good Luck. We hope to have the best, brightest, and most ethical on board."
It will never happen because police departments are so scattered across the US, and know one is ultimately in charge.
(On at all times. No covers for cams. One the whole time while on shift. Maybe a bathroom break exclusion, but I feel that would abused.)
If only all that footage was available... Then we could use opencv to count the number of donuts consumed in real time!
So people try to get back at cops to deal with their anger of being caught for their menial offences..