New bills about cops

[Cedar Park Dad]

Wow, you pull out the universal conversation ender rather quickly. Then what? What's next? What do you propose after a large percentage of the good cops say "heck with this" and quit?

Pay them more. Police deserve to contract for the pay they can best negotiate. If there's a shortage they should be able to negotiate higher pay.

My comparison was a moral barometer about what you place the most import: officer safety (body armor) or officer oversight (body camera). Obviously, what you deem most important for your "employees" is clear. Just don't be surprised when your choices start sending the good employees looking for greener pastures.

I'll state frankly I agree with you completely. Officer oversight is far more important to me. I'm seeing the occupier mentality I had the joy of living under in LA spreading outside of California. it needs to stop. This is one step in that. Safety as a complete priority leads to battle armor, armored vehicles, and an occupier mentality, which also does police no good.

[A-R]

Wow, you pull out the universal conversation ender rather quickly. Then what? What's next? What do you propose after a large percentage of the good cops say "heck with this" and quit?

Pay them more. Police deserve to contract for the pay they can best negotiate. If there's a shortage they should be able to negotiate higher pay.

My comparison was a moral barometer about what you place the most import: officer safety (body armor) or officer oversight (body camera). Obviously, what you deem most important for your "employees" is clear. Just don't be surprised when your choices start sending the good employees looking for greener pastures.

I'll state frankly I agree with you completely. Officer oversight is far more important to me. I'm seeing the occupier mentality I had the joy of living under in LA spreading outside of California. it needs to stop. This is one step in that. Safety as a complete priority leads to battle armor, armored vehicles, and an occupier mentality, which also does police no good.

So pay police more to work under more oversight but less safety? If you can't find money to supply both armor and cameras, where are you going to find the money for higher pay?

[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 too think all officers should have armor available. I've offered to put on a fundraiser to help get it for our deputies that do not have it. My offer hasn't been accepted yet and the initial feedback was that the ones that really want it and would wear it, especially during the summer, already have it. That's also one reason it wasn't budgeted. I suspect there are other things that have been purchased instead of body armor that would not have taken priority if all officers were committed to wearing it.

Have you offered such? If so, what was the feedback you received? Have you looked at the budget to see what has been purchased instead of body armor?

Body armor should be a mandatory part of the daily patrol uniform. I'll just leave it at that. As for budgets ... way above my pay grade. My original point was how are we all going to pay for body cameras (and storage and the rest of the expenses that come with body cams) when many departments can't even afford the far more fundamental necessity of body armor.

[mojo84]

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 too think all officers should have armor available. I've offered to put on a fundraiser to help get it for our deputies that do not have it. My offer hasn't been accepted yet and the initial feedback was that the ones that really want it and would wear it, especially during the summer, already have it. That's also one reason it wasn't budgeted. I suspect there are other things that have been purchased instead of body armor that would not have taken priority if all officers were committed to wearing it.

Have you offered such? If so, what was the feedback you received? Have you looked at the budget to see what has been purchased instead of body armor?

Body armor should be a mandatory part of the daily patrol uniform. I'll just leave it at that. As for budgets ... way above my pay grade. My original point was how are we all going to pay for body cameras (and storage and the rest of the expenses that come with body cams) when many departments can't even afford the far more fundamental necessity of body armor.

I hear you and am not disagreeing. I just think there is money there if they saw it as a priority. I am not sure how many departments or agencies make it mandatory. Sometines lack if budget is just an excuse. They could drive one car for one more year and cover the body armor needs for most officers if not all in a small agency.

I would encourage you to request a copy of the county or city budget and take a look. You'd be surprised how your tax dollars are spent.

[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 too think all officers should have armor available. I've offered to put on a fundraiser to help get it for our deputies that do not have it. My offer hasn't been accepted yet and the initial feedback was that the ones that really want it and would wear it, especially during the summer, already have it. That's also one reason it wasn't budgeted. I suspect there are other things that have been purchased instead of body armor that would not have taken priority if all officers were committed to wearing it.

Have you offered such? If so, what was the feedback you received? Have you looked at the budget to see what has been purchased instead of body armor?

Body armor should be a mandatory part of the daily patrol uniform. I'll just leave it at that. As for budgets ... way above my pay grade. My original point was how are we all going to pay for body cameras (and storage and the rest of the expenses that come with body cams) when many departments can't even afford the far more fundamental necessity of body armor.

I hear you and am not disagreeing. I just think there is money there if they saw it as a priority. I am not sure how many departments or agencies make it mandatory. Sometines lack if budget is just an excuse. They could drive one car for one more year and cover the body armor needs for most officers if not all in a small agency.

I would encourage you to request a copy of the county or city budget and take a look. You'd be surprised how your tax dollars are spent.

Police budgets are difficult. It's an extremely expensive endeavor with little direct return on investment. Sure you can always rob Paul to pay Peter, but a vehicle that doesn't break down during a pursuit or en route to a Code 3 emergency is just as vital as body armor to performing the job safely and effectively. Perhaps body cameras and higher pay are also equally important to some (I'm not yet convinced).

Point is, all of this "stuff" costs enormous amounts of public money and should not be purchased on a whim because some folks don't like/don't trust cops.

[mojo84]

It appears your issue is more the trust or lack there of than budget. I am confident there is budget there. As there are more bad shoots and other things, trust will continue to erode whether they have new equipment or not.

How many cops in your department that would wear body armor that don't have it? In ours, apparently there were none since they didn't take me up on my offer to raise the funds.

I don't think it is a budget driven as you seem to believe. Most departments have what is necessary to do the job safely and effectively. I don't think body cameras is going to break the budget. I also believe every bad shoot or encounter that happens makes the cop's jobs more dangerous.

Would you feel safe being a cop on the streets of Ferguson or North Charlotte right now. I wouldn't with or without body armor.

[A-R]

Good points.

Other than cost, which is not the small concern you seem to think it is (agree to disagree), I'm concerned about adding yet another "toggle switch" officers must activate before engaging the actual problem on the street. It's all muscle memory and training, of course. But not much budget for real training either.

My point is this. I'm a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. principle in most things, especially under stress. This is why I prefer Glock to 1911 or anything else with a thumb safety (just to give a gun-world context). Adding a body camera is just one more thing a cop has to "activate" when approaching a subject. Sure, one more little thing to remember should be no big deal. But add this to activating lights, dash cams, microphones, unlatch seat belt, put car in park, turn wheels left, begin 7-step violator contact, check blind spots, gauge the suspect and others, look for weapon and contraband in plain sight, read body language, analyze any unusual odors.

Then add in a variable like someone gets out of car and approaches or runs or starts shooting. Then go through the 6-step hierarchy of force, disengage weapon retention devices etc.

It's enough to overwhelm an already stressed brain reacting to a possible life-or-death situation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about all these steps. Far from it. They're necessary and effective and must be learned and utilized.

My concern is the undue assumed guilt if an officer forgets (or doesn't have time) to activate that body cam. Once that cat is out of the bag then ALL cops will be assumed guilty if they don't have video recording of every critical incident to support their version of events. No video? Then the cop must be lying and covering up.

And what happens when the body cam doesn't record what the cop's eyes see? Camera angles, distortion, lighting, even hands raised in a shooting grip can obscure the video footage.

Admittedly, this fear can be mitigated the same as all the other steps with good training and repetition. I just don't like fostering the assumption in the public's mind that video of every critical incident should always be available.

And yes there are various auto-activation systems available, but none are fool proof and many come with tremendous invasion of privacy. How do you go to the bathroom if your body cam is constantly auto activating? How do you share a joke or private conversation?

I know full well these concerns will fall on deaf ears. I fully expect mandatory body cams in the next year. Hopefully this wont be the straw they breaks the camel's back. But an exodus of good, experienced cops out of the profession is already being documented nationwide.

[mojo84]

I agree it would be bad if they have to activate them before an interaction. However, most that I am aware of operate like a dash can. They run continuously in a loop. The officer would have to turn it off if they didn't want it to be on. (Thinking lunch and bathroom breaks here.)

I would be interested to learn more about there operation when I get a chance to do some further research.

I really think more good would come from using them for both the officers and the citizens than bad.

[nightmare69]

So how do we feel on the bill preventing people from getting within a certain distance, I.E. in the way, or in the face of LEOs performing their duties?

[A-R]

I agree it would be bad if they have to activate them before an interaction. However, most that I am aware of operate like a dash can. They run continuously in a loop. The officer would have to turn it off if they didn't want it to be on. (Thinking lunch and bathroom breaks here.)

I would be interested to learn more about there operation when I get a chance to do some further research.

I really think more good would come from using them for both the officers and the citizens than bad.

Most dash cams I believe must be activated. Some are activated every time the driver door opens, some every time lights & sirens are activated, some when vehicle reaches a certain speed, some must be manually activated.

The continuous loop idea is interesting, but again opens the same Pandora's box if an incident occurs when the camera was manually shut off - not to mention the enormous data storage requirements.

[mr1337]

Just read HB1035 expecting another version of HB2918 (which would have disallowed recording police within 100 feet if you have a CHL) but I was pleasantly surprised. This bill actually makes it a defense to prosecution against Interference with Public Duties if you are simply filming, recording, photographing, documenting, or observing a peace officer if you also obey lawful orders to change proximity or location when ordered.

Seeing as it's a defense we didn't have before, I see that as a very good thing.

[mojo84]

I agree it would be bad if they have to activate them before an interaction. However, most that I am aware of operate like a dash can. They run continuously in a loop. The officer would have to turn it off if they didn't want it to be on. (Thinking lunch and bathroom breaks here.)

I would be interested to learn more about there operation when I get a chance to do some further research.

I really think more good would come from using them for both the officers and the citizens than bad.

Most dash cams I believe must be activated. Some are activated every time the driver door opens, some every time lights & sirens are activated, some when vehicle reaches a certain speed, some must be manually activated.

The continuous loop idea is interesting, but again opens the same Pandora's box if an incident occurs when the camera was manually shut off - not to mention the enormous data storage requirements.

I think this article indicates the real objections to body v cameras. I don't think it's budget, data storage or inefficient activation.

http://www.policeone.com/police-product ... come-them/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These cameras seem to full the book without busting the budget or being too onerous in the data storage or activation areas.

I just think they help and some chips just don't like the idea. I have a feeling many felt the same about dash cams.

Like I said, some cops still refuse to wear body armor and others do it without complaining or being forced to do so.

Here are some resources for grants to help purchase them.

http://www.policegrantshelp.com/product ... as-grants/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cb1000rider]

So how do we feel on the bill preventing people from getting within a certain distance, I.E. in the way, or in the face of LEOs performing their duties?

I don't like it. I'd rather see a bill that protects them from arrest and prosecution outside of a certain distance. For argument, lets call it 25 feet, but it could be any distance.
Inside of that distance, it's up to LEOs if you're a problem and they can treat you accordingly.. Outside of that distance, you know you're not breaking the law. It gives officers flexibility and protects the public. I think it would accomplish the same thing and be a lot less controversial.

[psijac]

You prepared to foot the bill? Many small departments cannot afford the cost and upkeep of body cams. I've personally gone through 3 shoulder mics in less than a year. I would love to have a body cam but my dept and many others simply cannot afford them.

I hope that one day body cameras become so common place for police officers that your statement will become as silly as saying, "Many small departments cannot afford the cost and upkeep of handguns"

[mojo84]

The appropriate distance away from a police investigation is far enough that your presence does not create a dangerous distraction.

Not disputing that police need space to work. Again though, I have had seen zero videos where someone filming caused a dangerous situation. I have seen lots where LEOs have decided to engage people filming them. To my knowledge there is also zero proof (anecdotal or on the record) that someone filming a cop has caused a dangerous distraction that caused an incident.

I will concede that the majority of people who make a habit out of filming the police are children. If LEOs were smart they would treat them as such and ignore them. As soon as people quit getting that "gotcha" moment from LEO, I imagine they will find a new hobby.

On the topic of body cameras, the real data shows that when cops wear body cameras EVERYONE (including them) behaves better.

http://www.policefoundation.org/content ... -use-force" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"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."

I hope TX passes some sort of bill to require body cameras.

You prepared to foot the bill? Many small departments cannot afford the cost and upkeep of body cams. I've personally gone through 3 shoulder mics in less than a year. I would love to have a body cam but my dept and many others simply cannot afford them.

The above bolded section of the quote and the below quote illustrate exactly what I'm talking about. It's not budget, it's priorities and preferences. Many cops don't want the cameras so they blame budgets as the reason not to get them. I don't think budget is the reason and these two posts illustrate that. Both of these quotes came from the same officer talking about the same department acquiring equipment. I would prioritize cameras over most of the SWAT gear for the regular university campus cop. They can always call on the SWAT team when they need SWAT gear used.

I'm not attacking anyone and I know no one is going to limit me to a revolver. We at the university will never get a MRAP or full autos, we may one day however have everything that Swat has. Shields and breaching tools are something we are looking into getting.

viewtopic.php?f=83&t=75027&start=75" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;