Multi-Million/Billionaires Owning Farms
Society & Culture2 mins ago
Cameras For Our Police ?
http://
Perhaps its the public that should be wearing cameras ? I wouldn't mind betting that Andrew Mitchell wished he had a camera on him back in September 2012 ! Might have saved an awful lot of faffing around.
Perhaps its the public that should be wearing cameras ? I wouldn't mind betting that Andrew Mitchell wished he had a camera on him back in September 2012 ! Might have saved an awful lot of faffing around.
Answers
Rather amazing it's just armed Police - a good start I'd say They've had cameras in Police cars for years and it's worked well. More to the point it'll be a significant deterrant effect on both sides. That is to people knowing their exchanges with police are being filmed and to those Police who think that their uniform gives them the right to wade in against...
08:46 Thu 09th Jan 2014
it won't work because evidence taken by camera can be distorted, if you have two people having an argument you may catch the words but not the body language, or anything off camera to the side, another party, and a free for all. If the camera footage shows the PC in a bad light, how is that going to play out, or will they have to defend every word, action,
I think a camera will be useful. It is not just for the armed response teams that body cameras are being considered, either, and there has been some data out of the US to suggest that interactions between police and public are more ordered when all parties know they are being filmed.
As for the public carrying cameras - well the police can be very touchy about being filmed; we still see reports of police officers overstepping their authority. It will be very interesting to see how they respond as Google Glass becomes more common/ubiquitous.
As for the public carrying cameras - well the police can be very touchy about being filmed; we still see reports of police officers overstepping their authority. It will be very interesting to see how they respond as Google Glass becomes more common/ubiquitous.
will not the public who are being spoken to, cautioned, arrested by the police object that their human rights are being violated, by being caught on camera, and the police perhaps would be wary of being caught on
camera, after all its not just about their wrong doing, if they are special ops they won't want faces be shown. Not sure this would work in reality, perhaps a trial run for a few months, seem how it works out
camera, after all its not just about their wrong doing, if they are special ops they won't want faces be shown. Not sure this would work in reality, perhaps a trial run for a few months, seem how it works out
And that's exactly what's happening, Emmie - Trial runs here in the UK in various forces, and over in the US - and other places around the globe too, I am sure.
Camera's and videos are increasingly part of our daily lives - This is quite apart from CCTV - but you will find many motorists who have installed a videocam in their car. And with devices like Google Glass on the horizon, the legal and policing framework is going to have to adapt and change.
From what I have seen though, the data from the US suggests police wearing body cameras is a help rather than a hinderance.
Camera's and videos are increasingly part of our daily lives - This is quite apart from CCTV - but you will find many motorists who have installed a videocam in their car. And with devices like Google Glass on the horizon, the legal and policing framework is going to have to adapt and change.
From what I have seen though, the data from the US suggests police wearing body cameras is a help rather than a hinderance.
Rather amazing it's just armed Police - a good start I'd say
They've had cameras in Police cars for years and it's worked well.
More to the point it'll be a significant deterrant effect on both sides.
That is to people knowing their exchanges with police are being filmed and to those Police who think that their uniform gives them the right to wade in against people they've personally decided are 'wrong-uns'
Can't imagine why Emmie thinks this is a bad idea.
'Can't catch the body language on camera?' - maybe another cup of coffee is in order
They've had cameras in Police cars for years and it's worked well.
More to the point it'll be a significant deterrant effect on both sides.
That is to people knowing their exchanges with police are being filmed and to those Police who think that their uniform gives them the right to wade in against people they've personally decided are 'wrong-uns'
Can't imagine why Emmie thinks this is a bad idea.
'Can't catch the body language on camera?' - maybe another cup of coffee is in order
emmie. The Met Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has said that in future London Firearms Officer will wear cameras. If it is suitable for the Police to wear these, then why isn't it also a good idea for us to wear them as well ?
Trust in our police is fast ebbing away, and one of the main reasons for this is that many of them have been seen to be, at best, economic with the truth, and at worst to lie. Two sets of cameras would seem to me to be both belt and braces. If Mitchell had been wearing a camera mounted on his cycling helmet, as a lot of cyclists now do, the case couldn't have dragged on for over a year and still be unsatisfactorily unresolved. We should be embracing modern technology, as it can protect both sides.
A version of your argument was used many years ago when it was first suggested that interviews in Police Stations should be recorded on cassette tape but it is now widely accepted that that innovation has been a success.
Trust in our police is fast ebbing away, and one of the main reasons for this is that many of them have been seen to be, at best, economic with the truth, and at worst to lie. Two sets of cameras would seem to me to be both belt and braces. If Mitchell had been wearing a camera mounted on his cycling helmet, as a lot of cyclists now do, the case couldn't have dragged on for over a year and still be unsatisfactorily unresolved. We should be embracing modern technology, as it can protect both sides.
A version of your argument was used many years ago when it was first suggested that interviews in Police Stations should be recorded on cassette tape but it is now widely accepted that that innovation has been a success.
Have a read of the following link. Includes some real-world footage of police body cams at work in California.
http://
Quality of the picture looks pretty good to me, particularly if it is being used in conjunction with witness plaintiff and police testimony.
http://
Quality of the picture looks pretty good to me, particularly if it is being used in conjunction with witness plaintiff and police testimony.
I tend to agree with Jake.
But, camera evidence alone cannot be used. The camera does lie or at best give a distorted truth. Emmie has some good points that it does not catch what is going on around, neither does it catch the copper's over agreesive face and stance for instance.
As for the public, providing you are on public ground (or your own) then there is nothing plod can do about it. It will come I am sure,
But, camera evidence alone cannot be used. The camera does lie or at best give a distorted truth. Emmie has some good points that it does not catch what is going on around, neither does it catch the copper's over agreesive face and stance for instance.
As for the public, providing you are on public ground (or your own) then there is nothing plod can do about it. It will come I am sure,
Well one thing is for sure - you cannot just ignore the rise of body cams. The police will definitely be introducing them, no question.And with the public more and more willing to use vidcams, mobile phone footage and new developments like google glass, policing and the law has to take that into account.
And I think everyone knows that such footage is unlikely to be of broadcast drama quality, but it does not need to be, especially if it is being used in conjunction with other evidence and testimony.
Objecting to their use is rather like Canute trying to hold back the tide.
And I think everyone knows that such footage is unlikely to be of broadcast drama quality, but it does not need to be, especially if it is being used in conjunction with other evidence and testimony.
Objecting to their use is rather like Canute trying to hold back the tide.
from the link
"When you know you're being watched you behave a little better. That's just human nature," said Farrar. "As an officer you act a bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better."
and some will act up and behave badly, and if it looks on camera that the officer has used undue force, even if it's within the remit of their job, will that count against him/her.
if they trial it and it's a success then fine, personally i am not sure.
"When you know you're being watched you behave a little better. That's just human nature," said Farrar. "As an officer you act a bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better."
and some will act up and behave badly, and if it looks on camera that the officer has used undue force, even if it's within the remit of their job, will that count against him/her.
if they trial it and it's a success then fine, personally i am not sure.
emmie...do you think that our trust in the Police is still good ? Really ?
Will you wait until the outcome of the new Hillsborough Inquest, before re-examining your stance, or have all the recent scandals involving our Boys in Blue not been enough for you ? You know, the off duty Policeman who said that he heard Michell being rude to the Number Ten plods, but who wasn't anywhere near the place. There are others of course.
You are entitled to your view of course but I think that you may just be guilty of extreme naivety.
Will you wait until the outcome of the new Hillsborough Inquest, before re-examining your stance, or have all the recent scandals involving our Boys in Blue not been enough for you ? You know, the off duty Policeman who said that he heard Michell being rude to the Number Ten plods, but who wasn't anywhere near the place. There are others of course.
You are entitled to your view of course but I think that you may just be guilty of extreme naivety.
that was my thoughts as well, can they be tampered with, if a person is violent and the cameras are rolling, and others are filming the encounter, won't this be several different versions of the same event, one filmed by the police the others by member of the public, and who would decide which version is the truth. I am not against them, just not really sure they will work in the way that some expect.
Seems to me that evidence is open to tampering already. More difficult to tamper with an additional source of evidence, like video footage, as well. People can see where frames have been deleted/added, or tampered with or whatever.
This is just an extension of voice recordings, it seems to me. And with mobile phone camera footage already available, this is just something whose time has come -rather like goal-line technology in football ;)
This is just an extension of voice recordings, it seems to me. And with mobile phone camera footage already available, this is just something whose time has come -rather like goal-line technology in football ;)
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Strands#265 Did You Hear That?
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
