WMN: t3_33odih_t1_cqmveu9

[TITLE]

CMV: Police body cams won't help anything

[Dazo5]

_____ Hey everyone. So with the string of police shootings/killings, the response I see most is that they ordered body cams. Sounds good... Yet, there are videos of most of the incidents taken by bystanders. And in most cases, the police get away with it anyway. I understand that full videos may not be taken (i.e., before the incident, during, and after the incident), but the act has been caught in most cases and it doesn't seem to help. I can also imagine how many "coincidental" technical malfunctions will occur.

[parentheticalobject]

[STA-CITE]>Yet, there are videos of most of the incidents taken by bystanders. And in most cases, the police get away with it anyway. [END-CITE]Here's something to think about - given all the instances of a controversy arising because bystanders take cell phone videos of police shooting or killing someone, how often do you think that similar instances happen when no one is around to film it, and the police in question don't have any trouble because it's a case of "He said, he can't say anything because he's dead"? Now, in plenty of cases the judicial system will fail to prosecute law enforcement, but *at least* we know about what's going on so we can attempt to hold them accountable. It's far from perfect, but at least knowing more about what went down is a step in the right direction.

[KevinWestern]

[STA-CITE]>Yet, there are videos of most of the incidents taken by bystanders [END-CITE]There is no comparison going from the occasional civilian phone video from a distance to being filmed 100% of the time without exception. There's absolutely no comparison. [STA-CITE]>And in most cases, the police get away with it anyway. [END-CITE]Yes, because it's the police's word vs that of the civilian. The 100% filming is the tool to change that. [STA-CITE]> I can also imagine how many "coincidental" technical malfunctions will occur. [END-CITE]Is it better to have 98% of an officer's day filmed (with 2% error/corruption) than 0%?

[flippydip]

[STA-CITE]>Is it better to have 98% of an officer's day filmed (with 2% error/corruption) than 0%? [END-CITE]I get your point and agree with you, but I'm curious if you were just using those numbers for illustration or if they come from actual data? If so could you link the source?

[[missing]]

[phcullen]

I seriously doubt there is any data on the "coincidental" failure rate of a camera.

[Dazo5]

I meant in the future, once the cameras are implemented, some "malfunction" will occur and it won't be recorded.

[[missing]]

[phcullen]

When you put malfunction in quotes for you mean shady cops turning off cameras or do you mean real malfunctions?

[Dazo5]

The former.

[phcullen]

Well in that case it is random and therefore much more likely to happen when there isn't an incident. Meditate as much as possible by buying quality cameras and having them regularly check to make sure they are working correctly (like we do with equipment we give police already) and the already existing policy of having more than one officer on scene decreases the chance of loosing all data even less likely

[Dazo5]

[STA-CITE]>Well in that case it is random and therefore much more likely to happen when there isn't an incident. [END-CITE]I'm thinking you misunderstood; I was referring shady cops. However, your last point could also apply to this. [STA-CITE]>the already existing policy of having more than one officer on scene decreases the chance of loosing all data even less likely [END-CITE]If it's more than 2 cops, definitely. Tho the Brown and Scott case were incidents in which only 1 cop seemed present.

[[missing]]

[toms_face]

You imply that it's a bad thing when the camera doesn't show something (what you call a malfunction), but this is essentially what you want all the time. I don't see how you can want a lack of recording by body cameras and then get suspicious when body cameras don't record. If there really are malfunctions, or "shady cops" turning off their cameras, then that's no worse than not having the camera there. The best case scenario is that we see everything, and the worst case scenario is that we don't see anything extra.

[Dazo5]

∆ this post pointed out that the malfunction I brought up is basically not having a camera the whole time.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/toms_face. [^toms_face's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/toms_face) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[flippydip]

I was just wondering if there was data on the tendency for body cams to malfunction. It may not be available yet (although I'm sure it will soon if these cameras become more commonplace) but I was just curious if the numbers came from a study on one of the police departments that have begun using these already or if the camera manufacturer had data on the efficiency of the cameras. It's not a big deal if they don't at the moment because that guy's point still stands, but I don't think it was outlandish for me to ask.

[Dazo5]

I don't think there are any real numbers as of yet.

[ulyssessword]

[STA-CITE]>Yet, there are videos of most of the incidents taken by bystanders. [END-CITE]This is a huge, huge selection bias. Let's say you are looking for examples of police brutality so you go to youtube and look for videos. After finding a few examples, you count up how many of them were recorded on video, and (surprise!) 100% of them were, otherwise you wouldn't have found them. Why would you ever expect to hear about alleged police brutality that *doesn't* have solid proof (such as a video) attached to it?

[Dazo5]

My point was that video exists, but it still didn't lead to a conviction.

[Crooooow]

I think when you say that the cameras won't help anything, what you mean is that they won't solve everything. Obviously there will still be problems because there are people who are bad at every job and there are racists in every job and police tend to attract some racists and psychopaths. But when you say that cameras won't help anything, that is just a defeatist attitude. We might as well throw up our hands and never attempt to fix anything if we can't make it 100% perfect on the first try. The cameras will fix SOMETHING even if it is not perfect, and if they can save one innocent life then it is worth the investment.

[Dazo5]

∆ "The cameras will fix SOMETHING even if it is not perfect, and if they can save one innocent life then it is worth the investment." I can jive with that.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Crooooow. [^Crooooow's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/crooooow) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[notdomoduro]

If you were trying to argue that police body cameras won't solve every problem in law enforcement, you're right and I'd agree with you. You're trying to argue that they won't help *anything*. I find that hard to believe. For one, they'll almost certainly help police officers prosecute *actual* criminals who are actually guilty, since the body cameras will provide more evidence against them. That's something. And, more pertinently, unless every court and police department is entirely corrupt, I find it hard to believe that they will ignore evidence of improper behavior by police officers *every* time they're presented with video evidence. Even if there are some "malfunctions" or other inappropriate actions that lead to guilty police officers getting off, the video will probably lead to some police officers somewhere getting convicted. Perhaps most importantly, the videos will hopefully cause a lot of police officers to simply behave better, regardless of whether or not they've led to a string of prosecutions. The officers will know that their actions are being recorded, and just having the fact in the back of their mind that they're not guaranteed to "get away with" bed behavior like many people think they are now will probably cause some officers to be more careful with their words and actions.

[[missing]]

[Dazo5]

∆ Yeah, I may have generalized it too much when I said that it won't help anything. Several other of your points make sense as well.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/notdomoduro. [^notdomoduro's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/notdomoduro) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[jftduncanwork]

Would a study that shows a change in the number of complaints convince you? http://www.policefoundation.org/sites/g/files/g798246/f/201303/The%20Effect%20of%20Body-Worn%20Cameras%20on%20Police%20Use-of-Force.pdf http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-cameras-police-use-force >The findings suggest more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force compared to control-conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens’ complaints in the 12-months prior to the experiment.

[morallyharmful]

I love when an OP avoids information like this. It goes to show when someone doesn't really come to have their views challenged.

[Dazo5]

How am I not coming to have my view challenged? Did I say something against this paper that jftduncanwork posted?

[[missing]]

[Dazo5]

I wonder what happened to the 5 incidents in which the officer was not physically threatened but used force nonetheless. This is basically my point. However, it was not the the most prevalent outcome.

[Dazo5]

∆ The study does show a reduction in incidents and complaints.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/jftduncanwork. [^jftduncanwork's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/jftduncanwork) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)