New bills about cops

[A-R]

Steve,

As usual your post is informative, knowledgable, and reasoned. Good info and food for thought.

[Cedar Park Dad]

As for CedarParkDad, you've made your opinion clear. I don't care to continue discussing it with someone as narrow minded and obviously anti-cop as you.

You're on a board where people are pushing for their rights under the Bill of Rights, pushing that bad police officers be held responsible, and think I'm anticop?

You do know that charges by BGs against cops fall dramatically with cameras right?

Please explain to me why you think your employers should not support a simple monitoring system. You're losing the public's trust and bad things are going to happen if you lose it completely. If you think cameras are bad, how about federal monitoring? Cameras are a simple way to help regain that trust, and protect YOU from false charges of abuse. Frankly this is a no brainer.

EDIT: You think I'm anticop, but I've seen what happens when the police lose their trust. Its extremely difficult, if even possible to regain it, and frankly I'd rather not have the police or my kids live in an extended USA wide model I experienced in LA.

[XinTX]

ETA: I took a quick peek at HB1035 -- it basically says it is a defense to prosecution for Interference with Public Duties if recording/photographing/documenting/observing was what you were doing (as long as you obey lawful orders to change position or proximity).

Well, somehow we went from a discussion of the public filming a LEO to a discussion on LEO body cameras. But I always have an issue with this wording "obey lawful orders". What is a "lawful" order? Do I need a lawyer next to me to tell if an order is or isn't "lawful". Our laws are encyclopedic. I'm all for giving the LEOs room to work. But I've seen video of LEOs threatening to arrest people who are standing in their own front yard and WELL out of the way as far as creating interference. Is an "order" to leave your own yard and go inside your home "lawful"? When you're filming 20 - 25 feet away?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not "anti cop". But nowadays there is a concerted effort by the media to highlight EVERY case of bad police work. Resistance to being recorded will be used to reinforce the narrative that every cop is evil and they just want to use minorities for target practice. I know that's not true, but it's the narrative being pushed by today's yellow journalism. And resistance to being recorded gives the APPEARANCE there is something to hide. Is it right? No. But that's the narrative being pushed. In the long run it will be shown to be the twisting of the truth that it is. But that will take some time. It will continue until the media finds another bad guy they want to demonize.

[A-R]

ETA: I took a quick peek at HB1035 -- it basically says it is a defense to prosecution for Interference with Public Duties if recording/photographing/documenting/observing was what you were doing (as long as you obey lawful orders to change position or proximity).

Well, somehow we went from a discussion of the public filming a LEO to a discussion on LEO body cameras. But I always have an issue with this wording "obey lawful orders". What is a "lawful" order? Do I need a lawyer next to me to tell if an order is or isn't "lawful". Our laws are encyclopedic. I'm all for giving the LEOs room to work. But I've seen video of LEOs threatening to arrest people who are standing in their own front yard and WELL out of the way as far as creating interference. Is an "order" to leave your own yard and go inside your home "lawful"? When you're filming 20 - 25 feet away?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not "anti cop". But nowadays there is a concerted effort by the media to highlight EVERY case of bad police work. Resistance to being recorded will be used to reinforce the narrative that every cop is evil and they just want to use minorities for target practice. I know that's not true, but it's the narrative being pushed by today's yellow journalism. And resistance to being recorded gives the APPEARANCE there is something to hide. Is it right? No. But that's the narrative being pushed. In the long run it will be shown to be the twisting of the truth that it is. But that will take some time. It will continue until the media finds another bad guy they want to demonize.

1. Resistance to being recorded ... the vast majority of cops are already recorded on dash cams (some also on body cams, or just audio microphones). The resistance to others recording is not the recording but the proximity (more on that next). But the next part of your narrative - that any cop "resistant to recording" will be used to reinforce the narrative that every cop is evil is PRECISELY the trouble I have with this rampant wide-spread call to mandate even more police recording options (body cams) ... IF a cop is involved in a critical incident and for ANY reason the incident is not recorded (forgot to activate camera in heat of the moment, technical malfunction, bad camera angle/didn't actually record anything, camera damaged during the incident) then an ever growing portion of the populace will simply ASSUME the cop(s) are guilty and covering up their guilt. Cameras have a place, but they are not the ONLY measure of truth.

2. Lawful orders and distance uninvolved subjects should remain from a police investigation ... nearly all of us here have been through a CHL class and should (if your instructor was worth $0.02) be familiar with the term "situational awareness" ... well, "controlling your scene" is much the same in the police world. For multiple reasons - safety, de-escalation, scene and evidence integrity – police are given wide latitude to control the scene of their investigation. There is no hard-n-fast, black-n-white law regarding what distance you must stay from a police scene. What distance is adequate depends on the “totality of the circumstances” (another concept that should’ve been taught in CHL class). You mentioned 20-25 feet? Ever heard of the “Tueller Drill” (another concept that should’ve been covered in CHL class)? It’s a training concept that states you must be able to draw, present, and fire your weapon at a target facing you in less than the 2-3 seconds it takes an average adult male to run 21 feet from a standing position and harm you with a bladed or blunt weapon. With that in mind, how can 20-25 feet be an adequate distance to stand away from an officer who is dealing with subject(s) on a scene and has his back to you while you’re filming? Suffice to say if an officer on scene tells you to “back up” or “stand over there” then you better do so or risk the Interference with Public Duties charge. If you don’t like it or think the officer is pushing you too far back, then pursue that grievance later. Just like the side of the road is not time to argue a traffic ticket, on the scene of an active police investigation is no time to argue how far back you need to stand.

I’m not trying to be a jerk with my responses here. But I get easily frustrated with the simplistic “it’s my right” concepts that do not take into account the complexity of an on-scene police investigation nor the dangers involved for the officers.

[cb1000rider]

IF a cop is involved in a critical incident and for ANY reason the incident is not recorded (forgot to activate camera in heat of the moment, technical malfunction, bad camera angle/didn't actually record anything, camera damaged during the incident) then an ever growing portion of the populace will simply ASSUME the cop(s) are guilty and covering up their guilt. Cameras have a place, but they are not the ONLY measure of truth.

Personally, I'd never assume that a technical failure is the fault of the officer. I would consider that, with a camera that can be selectively activated, that an officer might have intentionally chosen NOT to activate the camera. It's a simple solution, really. Out of the car or lights on, then the body camera is active. It's not a technological marvel. Plus, it's a "workload" issue. I don't want LEOs to even have to think about it - I don't want to give them any distractions. Cameras should be fully automatic, non-distracting, and such would make it hard to fault the officer.

Cameras are not the only measure of truth, but certainly a substantial step towards it, especially in "2-party" incidents where only one person survives.

Cameras protect good officers from bad people. They reduce complaints. They reduce the use of force. All of these things reduce lawsuits. These things are not assertions, they're statistical facts. Someone tell me why they're not mandatory? Seems like a no-brainer to me. I really don't care if LEOs feel that they're intrusive. LEOs work for you and me and should never be afraid of what is happening on a camera.

What distance is adequate depends on the “totality of the circumstances” (another concept that should’ve been taught in CHL class). You mentioned 20-25 feet? Ever heard of the “Tueller Drill” (another concept that should’ve been covered in CHL class)? It’s a training concept that states you must be able to draw, present, and fire your weapon at a target facing you in less than the 2-3 seconds it takes an average adult male to run 21 feet from a standing position and harm you with a bladed or blunt weapon. With that in mind, how can 20-25 feet be an adequate distance to stand away from an officer who is dealing with subject(s) on a scene and has his back to you while you’re filming? Suffice to say if an officer on scene tells you to “back up” or “stand over there” then you better do so or risk the Interference with Public Duties charge. If you don’t like it or think the officer is pushing you too far back, then pursue that grievance later. Just like the side of the road is not time to argue a traffic ticket, on the scene of an active police investigation is no time to argue how far back you need to stand.

I agree with you here, which is why any "minimum distance" law needs to not set an arrestable distance, but should set a safe distance outside of which you know that you're not breaking the law. Inside of that distance, LEOs get to use situational awareness and tactical digression to determine if he/she is distracted or threatened.

Because arrests are inherently punitive and potentially career ending (for some of us) indicating that it can get worked out in court isn't good enough.... Especially when we consider that we're going up against an "expert" witness and potentially without any actual recorded footage as cameras aren't required.

[MechAg94]

The problem is that even if you set a "safe distance" of 25 or 30 feet, someone recording might still be standing on evidence in a crime scene or worse, inadvertently kicking it around. I would say the cop shouldn't arrest you, but they should have the authority to demand you move further away or point out a boundary.

[A-R]

The problem is that even if you set a "safe distance" of 25 or 30 feet, someone recording might still be standing on evidence in a crime scene or worse, inadvertently kicking it around. I would say the cop shouldn't arrest you, but they should have the authority to demand you move further away or point out a boundary.

And if you refuse to move?

A lawful command without the potential of a lawful arrest behind is merely a bluff. This ain't poker. The safety and integrity of a police scene is not a game.

Just happened upon this video today and it fits the themes discussed in this thread. How many of you would feel safe if you were the first and only officer on this scene? (And for clarification, this happened in Atlanta, the female subject was intoxicated (0.17 BAL), and under Texas law there are at least three arrestable offenses: Trespassing, Public Intoxication, DOC-Language. Officer was extremely patient and gave her ample warning and opportunity to just leave and avoid arrest. The guy filming ( brother) starts spouting off while videoing , getting WAY too close to arresting officer, and actually attempting spur others to "do something" (to interfere with the arrest ???) He's lucky he did not also get arrested, but officer was too busy trying to cuff the drunk lady to even tell him to back up.

Links to LiveLeak violate Rule 17.

[VMI77]

THIS

There are still officers in small departments who are not issued BODY ARMOR! Let's fix that problem before we start throwing money at body cameras.

I'd rather spend the money on body cameras.
I'd be ok with making that a state expenditure though.

I agree. While I think departments should issue body armor, it isn't so expensive that an officer couldn't purchase his own.

[A-R]

THIS

There are still officers in small departments who are not issued BODY ARMOR! Let's fix that problem before we start throwing money at body cameras.

I'd rather spend the money on body cameras.
I'd be ok with making that a state expenditure though.

I agree. While I think departments should issue body armor, it isn't so expensive that an officer couldn't purchase his own.

CedarParkDad, I rest my case on your posts revealing an anti-cop tendency.

[mr1337]

I think recording cops is incredibly important. Just take the recent case with Officer Michael Slager in NC. Had it not been for the witness documenting the events on his phone, the outcome would be vastly different. There would have been no charges on the police officer, even though he was absolutely not justified. The police report would have been the definitive story, even though we know it was blatantly falsified. Slager even dropped his taser near Walter Scott's body to substantiate his would-be testimony.

I'm not anti-cop, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable. They are public servants doing public work in public places.

I hope after the Slager case that police are more accepting to being recorded, at least the ones who wish to show their own honesty.

[Cedar Park Dad]

THIS

There are still officers in small departments who are not issued BODY ARMOR! Let's fix that problem before we start throwing money at body cameras.

I'd rather spend the money on body cameras.
I'd be ok with making that a state expenditure though.

I agree. While I think departments should issue body armor, it isn't so expensive that an officer couldn't purchase his own.

CedarParkDad, I rest my case on your posts revealing an anti-cop tendency.

Your posts reveal quite a bit as well.

Slager even dropped his taser near Walter Scott's body to substantiate his would-be testimony.

Note there was another officer there who gave a false report, including that the two of them had immediately called, and given the guy CPR. Instead they stood around chatting.

[VMI77]

THIS

There are still officers in small departments who are not issued BODY ARMOR! Let's fix that problem before we start throwing money at body cameras.

I'd rather spend the money on body cameras.
I'd be ok with making that a state expenditure though.

I agree. While I think departments should issue body armor, it isn't so expensive that an officer couldn't purchase his own.

CedarParkDad, I rest my case on your posts revealing an anti-cop tendency.

Another post revealing an anti-citizen tendency.

It's funny how certain people believe that anyone suggesting they be accountable for their actions must be against them. Same tired old style of rhetoric used by the left to silence criticism. Don't like Obama's actions you're a racist. Think Hillary should be prosecuted for her crimes you're a sexist. Don't celebrate gay weddings you're a homophobe. Think the police should wear body cameras and be held accountable for their actions, you're "anti cop."

So be it. Name calling won't deter me from advocating accountability for those who have the power to taze and cage their fellow citizens. It also won't spread love and appreciation for law enforcement. The US Constitution calls for EQUAL protection under the law. Cops are just citizens like the rest of us. If advocating that they be held to account like their fellow citizens is "anti cop" then it's a label I will bear with pride.

[A-R]

Whether or not cops are recorded is not the issue that reveals your anti-cop bias (most already are - dash cams). The issue I have with BOTH of your written assertions is that you both place a higher value on police oversight (body cams) than police safety (body armor). I find that open admission from both of you staggering and very telling of the value you place on your socio-political ideals and voyeristic "gotcha" wants over an officer's physical safety and quite possibly his/her life. Seems both of you would rather see video of an officer shot and killed than to have an officer alive with a slug in his vest but no video to quickly and easily "prove" how nor why.

If you'd said we want body cameras AND body armor, then there would be no issue and no labeling. But you both willfully and seemingly happily announced your twisted logic.

Go ahead and spin this and pontificate all you want. I'm done. Should've stayed out earlier - my mistake.

PS: and for the record, state police were investigating the Slager-Scot case before the cell phone video was released. See there are other investigative tactics (evidence, ballistics etc) used by real police who better understand such things than keyboard warriors who speculate, pontificate, and claim only video can prove the truth. But again, feel free to spout off about how you know he woulda gotten away with it if not for the video, which doesn't even reveal the full story. That said, Slager screwed up huge, deserves to and will be punished severely.

http://m.chronicle.augusta.com/news/cri ... #gsc.tab=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cedar Park Dad]

Whether or not cops are recorded is not the issue that reveals your anti-cop bias (most already are - dash cams). The issue I have with BOTH of your written assertions is that you both place a higher value on police oversight (body cams) than police safety (body armor). I find that open admission from both of you staggering and very telling of the value you place on your socio-political ideals and voyeristic "gotcha" wants

You mean like the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment under the Constitution? Like the right to not be killed and then have the police make a story up, complete with other police covering for him? Thats scary, just scary in the USA.

[Cedar Park Dad]

PS: and for the record, state police were investigating the Slager-Scot case before the cell phone video was released. See there are other investigative tactics (evidence, ballistics etc) used by real police who better understand such things than keyboard warriors who speculate, pontificate, and claim only video can prove the truth. But again, feel free to spout off about how you know he woulda gotten away with it if not for the video, which doesn't even reveal the full story. That said, Slager screwed up huge, deserves to and will be punished severely.

http://m.chronicle.augusta.com/news/cri ... #gsc.tab=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And he wasn't fired, nor charged until the video came out with what actually happened.
How about the other officer? Has he been fired yet?
How about the San Bernardino sheriffs who beat that guy up on video? Have they been fired yet?

You're not helping your argument.