Activist Rethinks His Position After Undertaking Use of Force Scenarios

[Raphael]

Some tasers have cameras. Some don't.

I've never seen or used one that did have a camera (though ours do log the date, time and duration of all discharges).

IIRC The ones issued to the NZ cops have cameras (and apart from those, tasers are illegal in NZ, as are pepper sprays except for cops and corrections staff)

[myth]

It does? Interesting.

Some tasers have cameras. Some don't.

I've never seen or used one that did have a camera (though ours do log the date, time and duration of all discharges).

[DesertBerean]

It's non-lethal, less controversial than a Tazer (although the tazer does have the added advantage of having a built-in camera every time it's fired)

It does? Interesting.

[Cow Poke]

I think something that needs to be considered is that a cop DAILY faces situations where he might not go home at the end of his shift. In the split seconds of a 'use of force' situation, he needs to consider whether his life (or the life of another person) is in imminent danger. If he deems the situation to justify "deadly force", he'd be a fool to opt for the "try the taser first" option, as he often won't have time to switch to a "plan b".

(And, incidentally, it's "taser", not "tazer" -- "Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle")

[KingsGambit]

There's that problem, too. Thing is, you can't have cameras running 24/7 because battery power and media storage are both limited, not to mention the resources needed to "wrangle" the data from hours of footage from dozens and even hundreds of cops, so when to turn on a body camera becomes a judgement call on the part of the officer, and he may have innocent and legitimate reasons for not turning it on that can lead to unfair suspicions that he's trying to hide something.

Maybe I'm in the minority on this one, but I just think body cameras could end up creating more problems than they solve.

Ultimately, if they can be used to diffuse tense situations, they may go along way toward improving community relations. A week or two ago, when the St. Louis County officer fatally shot a suspect, the police immediately released a surveillance video from a nearby business that showed the suspect pulling a gun on the officer, and I believe the release of this video prevented a full on riot given the location and the fact that, yes, it was a white officer shooting a black criminal. A few protesters still tried to attack the officer but even the jaded public, as a whole, knew who was in the right after seeing the evidence.

[Mountain Man]

One problem is that you have to make sure the cameras are on, and they can conveniently "go off". I read about one officer who was fired from a department with body cameras after being accused of excessive force three times, all of which saw the cameras magically malfunction right before the incident.

There's that problem, too. Thing is, you can't have cameras running 24/7 because battery power and media storage are both limited, not to mention the resources needed to "wrangle" the data from hours of footage from dozens and even hundreds of cops, so when to turn on a body camera becomes a judgement call on the part of the officer, and he may have innocent and legitimate reasons for not turning it on that can lead to unfair suspicions that he's trying to hide something.

Maybe I'm in the minority on this one, but I just think body cameras could end up creating more problems than they solve.

[Sparko]

SP, #2 was a guy WALKING toward the "officer" and he barely got his gun out in time. Plus it was a different situation than Brown was. Who had already struck the officer, tried to take his gun and then after he ran away, he charged back at the officer. The officer in that case KNEW what Brown was capable of and what he intended.

Did you watch the video I linked to showing how fast someone could cover 21 feet? Less than 3 seconds. Not much time to think about what to do, whether you are trained or not. That is why in dangerous situations like where Brown had already tried to harm the officer and take his gun, the correct course of action was for the officer to have his gun drawn and ready to use.

[KingsGambit]

Body cams may have potential negatives if the picture produced is confusing, but I think more information is better. As it is now, when two parties disagree, it's he said/she said and there's absolutely nothing to go on but the word of the two. People make false accusations against cops all the time; some cops indicate a willingness to do the same (note the 2007 incident here: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dai...ce_assault.php). I just don't see how more information isn't better if we really care about determining the truth.

One problem is that you have to make sure the cameras are on, and they can conveniently "go off". I read about one officer who was fired from a department with body cameras after being accused of excessive force three times, all of which saw the cameras magically malfunction right before the incident.

[Mountain Man]

Generally, when people do lame, stupid stuff like making crude parodies of usernames, it's an indication of disagreement. The reasonable assumption to be made was that you disagreed with what I wrote and thought it idiotic--that is, you didn't believe that cops were trained to handle things differently than civilians, or that tasers might've worked in that specific situation--and that your question was a rhetorical challenge.

Your judgment is honestly quite poor if you interpreted annoyance as hysteria.

It's about as funny as "Moron Man," which is to say, not at all.

Might want to take your own advice.

Uh...yeah. Neither I nor anyone I've ever known would disagree with this. I'm pretty sure no one thinks an officer's job is actually easy, or that it's perfectly okay to not comply with officers and to physically attack them. But whether one would be justified in using deadly force in situation #2 was precisely the point that I wanted to discuss, which makes it bizarre that you'd ignore this point and say it's beside the point.

Let's ignore the hysterical prattle and focus on the last paragraph where you finally come close to something of substance. The irony, of course, is you spend most of the paragraph actually agreeing with me even as you pretend that you're disagreeing.

The reason the activists' actual response to #2 is irrelevant is because he understood the point of the exercise which seems to continue to escape you. You shouldn't criticize a man until you've walked in his shoes. This activist walked in a cop's shoes, and guess what, pinhead? He stopped criticizing. There's a lesson in there for you.

(As a side note, I find it interesting that the activist chose to shoot in a scenario where a trained officer may have used restraint instead. That pokes another hole in the liberal narrative that all cops are gun crazed maniacs.)

[Mountain Man]

I have mixed feelings about this. I'm no longer "in the business", but YEARS ago, I remember the VCR setup we had in our squad room, where we interviewed subjects, and that tape saved my bacon a number of times against charges of sexual misconduct or aggressive force or whatever.

In a case where an officer had to fire in a dark alley as somebody was turning around with a wallet in their hand, but it looked like a gun, the body cam might give a better perspective on this than somebody shooting iphone footage from the side.

The absolute best thing would be for the subject just to comply with the officer --- hands in the air, turn around slowly....

Yes, body cams could help an officer, but they could also unjustly hang him, and that's the part that concerns me. A suspect turns with what the officer is convinced is a gun, but the video clearly shows that it's a wallet. Would it be fair, then, to assume that the officer should have recognized the object in question with the same fidelity as the footage? What about the fact that "tunnel vision" is a very real phenomenon for people under stress, and it may be impossible for the cop to have noticed something that can be seen on video? Then there are cases where the camera may not pick up something that the officer saw.

All I'm saying is that body cams are not necessarily the answer, because even video footage can be open to interpretation.

[fm93]

How was I wrong? I simply asked a question about what training an officer has that might compel him to respond to these situations differently. I expressed no opinion one way or the other about that particular matter. Secondly, I'm 100% correct when I say that tasers are "a special case tool with a fairly limited range of uses". Same with pepper spray. Any cop will back me up on that.

Generally, when people do lame, stupid stuff like making crude parodies of usernames, it's an indication of disagreement. The reasonable assumption to be made was that you disagreed with what I wrote and thought it idiotic--that is, you didn't believe that cops were trained to handle things differently than civilians, or that tasers might've worked in that specific situation--and that your question was a rhetorical challenge.

So instead of getting hysterical

Your judgment is honestly quite poor if you interpreted annoyance as hysteria.

that I called you "square_pinhead" (come on, you gotta admit it's funny)

It's about as funny as "Moron Man," which is to say, not at all.

you might want to take the time to actually read, and more importantly understand, what I've written.

Might want to take your own advice.

whether the activist was right or wrong to use deadly force in situation #2 is really beside the point. The take away is that, first of all, a cop's job is not easy, and he often has to make split-second life-or-death decisions under less than ideal conditions; and secondly, compliance on the part of the suspect is the #1 way to prevent an encounter with the police from escalating to the point where an officer feels that deadly force is warranted. Bottom line: a suspect who quietly surrenders is significantly less likely to get shot than one who tries to fight it out.

Uh...yeah. Neither I nor anyone I've ever known would disagree with this. I'm pretty sure no one thinks an officer's job is actually easy, or that it's perfectly okay to not comply with officers and to physically attack them. But whether one would be justified in using deadly force in situation #2 was precisely the point that I wanted to discuss, which makes it bizarre that you'd ignore this point and say it's beside the point.

[Cow Poke]

When I was Security Forces in Germany the order was "Halt..."

I remember one of the old Combat episodes where some GI's were standing a post, and they heard some noise in the bushes.... one of them took out a grenade, pulled the pin, then tossed it AS he was yelling "Halt - who goes there">...

combat.jpg

(his buddy corrected him on the proper sequence and timing)

[Cow Poke]

Which is precisely why "body cams" are not the answer. All they are is a tool that will allow the uninformed public, from the comfort of their own home, to second guess every single split-second decision made by a police officer.

I have mixed feelings about this. I'm no longer "in the business", but YEARS ago, I remember the VCR setup we had in our squad room, where we interviewed subjects, and that tape saved my bacon a number of times against charges of sexual misconduct or aggressive force or whatever.

In a case where an officer had to fire in a dark alley as somebody was turning around with a wallet in their hand, but it looked like a gun, the body cam might give a better perspective on this than somebody shooting iphone footage from the side.

The absolute best thing would be for the subject just to comply with the officer --- hands in the air, turn around slowly....

[Mountain Man]

I'm sure Wayne Industries has enough money to foot the bill.

I saw an infographic once about the cost of being Batman -- it ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars -- and it basically boiled down to Bruce Wayne was literally the only man in Gotham City who was rich enough and well-connected enough to be Batman.

[KingsGambit]

How much would it cost to give every cop a batsuit and battraining?

I'm sure Wayne Industries has enough money to foot the bill.