Hey, there! Log in / Register
City, police union reach deal for body-camera test
By adamg on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 9:48pm
Mayor Walsh and Police Commissioner William Evans today announced they have reached a deal with the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association for a six-month, $500,000 pilot to test body cameras worn by 100 volunteer officers.
However, no date for the beginning of the pilot - which advocates had once hoped would start this spring - was announced.
Start date of the pilot program, along with other specific policies related to body cameras, are in the process of being finalized by BPD.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
So who is in charge of the
So who is in charge of the department and who is the department responsible to if our elected officials and the fricken police commissioner obviously aren't without months of pretty please and a cherry on top?
What happens if no officers volunteer?
Or the only ones willing to try it out are the ones working construction details.
That'd be okay. I know you're
That'd be okay. I know you're being snarky, but often times officers working details witness a lot of activity. Here is just one of many examples:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/21/man-accused-daylight-shooti...
Love always,
a Boston Cop
Body cameras
The BPPA caved and the Union Leaders should be held responsible upon election
Because?
Because police officers' actions while on duty must not be scrutinized, ever?
Laughable
You feel the union leaders should be held responsible because you dont want police to be held accountable? Times are a changing, surely you know that.
body cameras
Times are changing? Yea for the worse for law abiding people. Its simple, get pulled over, do as told, accept responsibility for what you may have done, drive away
How many cops in the US? Thousands I ass u me. There is no way all are good, BUT!!! I'll bet it's close to 99% that are great.
Whenever you have that many individuals there are bound to have a couple bad apples. I stress a COUPLE!
"Do as you're told and you
"Do as you're told and you won't get shot" is what we tell hostages. I'd rather the sole legitimate wielders of force be held to a higher standard, thanks. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about, right?
Also, I will never get tired of people who don't know that "a few bad apples" is short for "a few bad apples spoil the barrel," i.e. the presence of a small number of bad actors poisons the entire batch.
spoil the barrel
It's not just about "bad apples", it's also about having a record of what happened, which turns out to be really important when one of the witnesses was killed.
The couple bad apples
Can now be identified and removed, before they spoil the whole barrel. As a good apple, you should rejoice.
99%
There are close to a million sworn law enforcement officers in the US.
If 1% are bad, that makes 10,000 armed bad guys out there, acting under color of authority.
Everyone has a camera pointed at you.
You may not like it but you also realize that people lie. If there was no video of Boston officer Moynihan being shot and the subsequent justified shooting of his would be murderer the lie that antagonists attempted to portray would still be fodder for division. What you will find is that over time a constitutional challenge to the use of police body camera's will come from the citizenry. As with the brethalizer holes will be punched and laws interpreted broadly.
Agreed.
We can end this madness tomorrow, with a simple law change: individual officers are civilly liable for their actions while on the clock. None of this "fine the department and take it out of the city coffers" nonsense; if you shoot someone while arresting them, and you don't have video to offer an affirmative defense, you're on the hook for the wrongful death suit even if the DA doesn't indict you on criminal charges. Then we let the market sort it out, and watch the lamentations stop immediately as everyone realizes that not wearing a body camera at all times means a 1000% hike in your liability insurance rates.
and you don't have video
and you don't have
videotangible evidence to offer an affirmative defense,FIFY. I'll add that if the inevitable internal investigation determines the officer's actions were justified, then NO civil trial shall be allowed to go forward. Time to end the nonsense of "double dipping" and "let's bleed people who have been found innocent anyway because they
are looking for a big undeserved payoutthink they "deserve" it.Are you proposing abolishing civil liability altogether?
There are plenty of things that are torts but not criminal. Let's say my neighbor up the hill fails to maintain his retaining wall, and the resulting mudslide caves in a side of my house. Because he has been found to have committed no crime; should I be prevented from seeking to be made whole?
There's also the difference of standard for civil litigation (preponderance of the evidence) versus criminal (beyond a reasonable doubt), which means, almost by definition, that many cases will fall into the territory between the two standards (sufficient evidence to find civil liability but insufficient evidence to convict criminally) There are many, many cases (consider O.J. Simpson as the most famous) where, for any of a variety of reasons, there is no criminal conviction but pretty convincing civil liability.
Poor Union Leadership
The BPPA should have agreed to wear the body cameras for their 8 hour shift, provided that all BPD command staff, mayor, and city council members agree to wear body cameras for their shifts or for 8 hours during business hours. Politicians make rules that they aren't subject to and union "leaders" bend over and take it. The BPPA did a shameful disservice to its members by not attempting to hold their managers to the same standard.
Body cameras can be a win for officers, too.
A lot of people are ignoring the fact that body cameras can be a win for officers, too. They provide a solid defense against unwarranted claims of brutality. They even head off potential problems: people who know there is video are less likely to make false claims of abuse, and may be less likely to violently resist arrest, etc.
The difference between, on the one hand the patrol officer and, on the other, the command staff, city council, and mayor, is that, for the former, face to face interaction on the street with the public, confrontation with violent criminals, and use of force are part of the job.
Creepy
Good luck getting witnesses willing to talk with an officer. I'm sure not.
How long until Big Brother is monitoring live feeds from these additional mobile cameras?
You should have no expectation of privacy
in a public place.
But you should in your home.
But you should in your home.
So what if an officer with a camera goes to a domestic where someone is acting really erratic and the officer thinks things could get bad?
Who do we protect?
The officer who wants to record so he isn't falsely accused of something, or the 911 caller who might be emotionally unstable?
Not always a public place
I might invite an officer into my home to tell him or her what I saw happening in the street. Leaking of that recording could be very injurious to my health.
Places with successful body camera programs have protocols for dealing with this.
One down 75 to go
Are the other 75 law enforcement agencies in the city of Boston such as MSP, Transit, Campus Police, Sheriffs, Rangers, School Police etc participating in this program otherwise it is just another PR stunt. If the fine officers who work for BPD are mandated to wear the cameras then everyone should have to wear them.
Won't matter
Police departments "lose" the video all the time anyway. Usually have to threaten lawsuits to have any access to it.
Half a million dollars for this thing I don't want?
I want my money back.