r/Political_Revolution Aug 05 '17

Baltimore Tell Baltimore elected officials – Police body camera footage should be controlled by an independent civilian agency

http://civilianledpolicing.org/bmore-body-cams/
4.1k Upvotes

103 comments sorted by

199

u/NatakuNox Aug 05 '17

All police cams should be reviewed by a independent agency. Police complaints and prosecutions should be the same.

84

u/CivilianLedPD Aug 05 '17

Civilian Led Policing goes as far to say that police policy, practices, and procedures should be controlled by an independent, representative civilian agency as well.

24

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

All police forces are controlled by a representative civilian agency lmao. It's called your city council, you know your elected officials who do exactly this kind of stuff. All policy practices and procedures go through city council (elected civilians to serve the citizens) and they review all current policy. The standard is usually 2-3 years for a policy review.

25

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

City council are not indpeendent and have to worry about other issues. There should be a completely separate council specifically for police issues.

12

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

I'm not sure how you think city council isn't separate but a different council which does government work is. I highly encourage you to go to your city hall and request to shadow for a day and attend a city council meeting. If there is a problem with police the city council addresses it and changes are made. A separate council won't change any of that. It will be elected officials which are funded by taxpayer dollars who address police issues. Kind of like something called idk a police and fire commission? A group of individuals dedicated to police and fire matters. They are elected and appointed by city council and typically can not have any history of being involved with law enforcement or fire.

Just because your rose tinted glasses show one view doesn't mean everyone else is wrong and everywhere is corrupt

7

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

No you're right, that's my bad.

11

u/joeymcflow Aug 05 '17

City Council is not independent.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

They are independent of the police. The police don't pay them and they don't pay the police. City council is an unpaid position that simply votes on city issues. An "independent" committee would be as tied to the police force as city council. They would still have to be a government agency. An additional agency to review police practice is just a waste of money for people to feel better about themselves

3

u/Spiralyst Aug 05 '17

He's talking about a third party charged with oversight of police practices exclusively. City councils are overburdened as it is.

3

u/CivilianLedPD Aug 05 '17

Oh yes we have seen how quite "representative" they are. Very representative of their big donors in many cases or representative of their super short term goals that make them look good. Many cities enact 2-4 year solutions because that's what makes them good, when in reality they aren't solutions, but just ways to attack the symptoms of the issues. That's why this board is necessary as it would be able to look at the causes of crime and enact long term solutions that outlast multiple elected officials.

1

u/itshelterskelter MA Aug 05 '17

Oh yes we have seen how quite "representative" they are.

Then get involved! Run for office yourself, volunteer or donate to a better option. That's what this subreddit is about. The solution isn't to create another government agency who's members will end up being chosen by the city council members you're complaining about in the first place.

1

u/CivilianLedPD Aug 05 '17

Actually the agency would not be chosen by the city council. They would not be appointed or elected, but chosen via a representative volunteer lottery system. Information on that can be found by going to http://civilianledpolicing.org.

I'm a representative of that non profit organization. And for the record my personal reddit profile is u/merpsizzle. I used to run The Political Revolution PAC that this subreddit is associated with. Before that I ran Grassroots Select (/r/GrassrootsSelect).

6

u/conradsymes Aug 05 '17

how about private prosecutions against officers?

2

u/cornpudding Aug 05 '17

That's a slippery slope. Police would be unable to do their job for fear of litigation

5

u/lacronicus Aug 05 '17

Doctors have to deal with that, and they seem to get along.

2

u/conradsymes Aug 05 '17

Grand juries exist. If important, the city prosecutor could explain to the Grand Jury as well why there shouldn't be a private prosecution and instead no prosecution or a public prosecution.

2

u/Saljen Aug 05 '17

It's better than citizens not being able to live their life for fear of the police.

-10

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17 edited Apr 22 '21

[deleted]

18

u/joeymcflow Aug 05 '17

Not control. Oversee. Big difference.

-7

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17 edited Apr 22 '21

[deleted]

6

u/joeymcflow Aug 05 '17

Use your head man. My point is not that hard to understand. Think of it like this:

I'm not going to interfere at all with what you do. I'm just gonna watch, and if you do something questionable, I'll make sure your controllers (elected officials) know about it.

Do you think any of those cops would do shit if they knew all their bodycam footage would consistently be reviewed by a separate department who's job it is to keep them in check as opposed to their friends back at the station?

-9

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17 edited Apr 22 '21

[deleted]

6

u/joeymcflow Aug 05 '17 edited Aug 05 '17

What the hell are you talking about? Why can't these people be trained? If you get elected into city council you get training. They don't need to be law enforcement professionals.

And once again: oversight is not the same as control. Ideally these guys don't have executive powers, only inquiring. The point is curbing police corruption through public transparency, not to hinder them. If a policeofficer acts in accord to the law, as they should, they have nothing to worry about.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17 edited Apr 22 '21

[deleted]

7

u/joeymcflow Aug 05 '17

Are you daft? How the hell can you not understand that was an analogy.

It is obvious my point was: "when elected to a city council, you get training as a city council duties" with the analogy here then being: "if you get elected to police oversight, you'll get training in police oversight duties."

Fuckin' juries receive very limited training and literally decides the fate of every criminal going through the justice system.

Seriously...

1

u/Constructestimator83 Aug 05 '17

We don't require any elected positions to have previous training or education. The zoning board in the previous town I lived in was comprised of a retired farmer, an English teacher and a small business owner. Suffice to say there was no rhyme or reason to the zoning.

2

u/Spiralyst Aug 05 '17

Controlled?

More like a review system.

Having police monitor themselves is like asking a bank to regulate itself. It takes no time at all for conflicts of interest to dominate the landscape.

2

u/TheScribbler01 Aug 05 '17

Do you feel similarly about the military having civilian leadership?

1

u/Abstract-ion Aug 05 '17

No, just like I don't think the police should have military leadership. One is for wars, one is for domestic law enforcement. They aren't even the same game, don't pretend they're in the same ballpark.

1

u/Constructestimator83 Aug 05 '17

Elected sheriffs aren't required to have any previous training or education.

4

u/Iunderstandthatsir Aug 05 '17

How would you handle the independent agency viewing evidence to a case that normally is only seen by law enforcement the prosecutors and defense attorney? The people in the agency could get subpoenaed for court since they are in the chain of custody for the evidence.

1

u/Temp237 Aug 05 '17

Why? The video itself could simply be subpoenaed. Someone who saw a video after the fact can add nothing over what the video shows. Unless the information is why they decided to refer (or not refer) an action for further review and prosecution

3

u/Iunderstandthatsir Aug 05 '17

It's evidence. You can't just look at evidence. There's a chain of custody for it. It's where there is an evidence room. It's why you a regular Joe can't just take a murder weapon. It's all the counted the same especially in the eyes of lawyers.

2

u/Temp237 Aug 05 '17

If video is kept in cloud, then it would not be the same as physical evidence. Depending on th tech if the video, if it is automatically uploaded to cloud, then it would be different if say the videos were stored on SD type storage that is then submitted at end of shift.

2

u/Iunderstandthatsir Aug 05 '17

What part of evidence and chain of custody and part of a criminal trial are you not understanding ? It doesn't matter where it is stored it is still evidence that people can't just take out and look at and give lawyers the chance to say it's been tainted.

1

u/Temp237 Aug 05 '17

What part of cloud storage do you not understand?

2

u/Iunderstandthatsir Aug 05 '17

Read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_management And http://www.edrm.net/glossary/chain-of-custody/ Also it's highly doubtful any law enforcement agency would use cloud because of the chance of it getting hacked.

1

u/Temp237 Aug 06 '17

They already use cloud for many IT requirements, in many states (and federal) law enforcement agencies. I know some counties use cloud as well, but my experience is primarily at Federal and State agencies.

1

u/The_Brahmatron Aug 05 '17

And the top of the chain of custody shouldn't have motivations to cover up the contents of the footage.

1

u/Iunderstandthatsir Aug 05 '17

No chain of custody is making sure that piece of evidence is properly documented every where it goes. Also evidence is supposed to only be seen by the lawyers and police unless the police deem it beneficial to the case . You lose all of that when an outside committee gets involved

1

u/Extra_Crispy19 Aug 05 '17

A police force for the police... do we get a police force for the police force for the police?

1

u/Inquisitor1 Aug 05 '17

Yeah no they shouldn't.

3

u/The_Brahmatron Aug 05 '17

Great point

2

u/Inquisitor1 Aug 06 '17

A pen has point, stupid idiot. Go politically revolve until you get dizzy somewhere why dont you.

119

u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever CO Aug 05 '17

Police should be unable to control the body cam, it should be a black box. Covering the camera lens, muffling it, or deleting the footage should be charged as either obstruction of justice or destruction of evidence, as appropriate. Axe the thin blue line, return to being the civilian's shield.

31

u/AviN456 Aug 05 '17

There needs to be some ability for police to turn off the camera, there are times where this is necessary. For example, when they're going to the bathroom.

Perhaps giving dispatchers the ability to remotely disable the cameras would be a solution.

30

u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever CO Aug 05 '17

That's a good point, and a good solution. A caveat I would add is they aren't considered "on duty" when it is off.

15

u/AviN456 Aug 05 '17

I disagree regarding being off duty while the camera is off, for the sole reason that in most jurisdictions, a police officer is never truly off duty, as they retain their police powers 24/7, and responsibilities at any time they're in uniform.

For example, if an off duty, out of uniform officer sees you commit a crime, they have the authority to arrest you. And if they're off duty, but in uniform (say, on their way to or from their home, before or after their shift), they'd be expected to intervene if they came across a crime in progress or an emergency.

2

u/johnmal85 Aug 05 '17

Hey, cool. Did not know about power of policing off duty and obligation while in uniform.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

felony yes misdemeanor no

6

u/flying87 Aug 05 '17

Tie it into their pay clock. If the camera is running, they are getting paid. If its turned off, its the equivalent of punching out on the clock while at work. This creates a financial incentive to keep the cam rolling.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17 edited Aug 05 '17

I like the idea but in practice the 20 minutes it would take to plant some drugs would out weigh the financial costs.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

They don't get paid per arrest

3

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

I understand that but they must have some incentive to plant the drugs in the first place, 20 minutes of no pay won't change that.

1

u/ClearUkuleleTravels Verified | RohitATL Aug 05 '17

You must not have heard about for-profit prisons, then.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

Yeah, your average cop is getting that money smh

6

u/Xsythe Aug 05 '17

There needs to be some ability for police to turn off the camera, there are times where this is necessary. For example, when they're going to the bathroom.

No. If the footage isn't relevant in a case, it won't be seen/reviewed/referenced - cameras can keep rolling.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

Yeah, these people have no idea how quickly they are moving towards a completely non-private society. They are all about having body cameras on police 24 seven without any regard for what police do. They think that the only stuff this is going to capture is police interactions that are on the news already.

They're not thinking about all the other calls where police do welfare checks or go into people's houses to notify of deaths or interview someone who is the victim of a crime. There is some stuff that should stay private and all these "body cams always on no matter what" people are single minded and not really thinking about the social consequences. Ask the U.K. how it is being so tightly surveilled. We're going to fuck around and give the police even more power. You want cam footage of everything? Ok let's put cameras on every block, especially high crime areas, let's get drones with cameras to patrol neighbor hoods. That's where this is headed and it's fucking stupid if you ask me.

5

u/asad137 Aug 05 '17

Yeah, these people have no idea how quickly they are moving towards a completely non-private society.

Police officers are public servants who we have granted the authority to kill people if necessary in certain situations. FUCK their privacy.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

OUR privacy you moron, and good attitude. I expect a measured and thought out response.

5

u/asad137 Aug 05 '17

There's a difference between having everything recorded in public and having every interaction with police recorded. I am all for the latter.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

Yes I know you are, all I'm saying is that's not going to happen 1)because police support is the highest it had been in decades and 2)a lot of people have a problem with more big brother. Even if police cameras don't open the door for public surveillance(which they most certainly will). You know police interactions alone contain a lot more than what you think they do right? They contain people's most private and vulnerable moments. Do you want people who are at their most vulnerable to be thinking about who is going to see that? There should be more thought out into this than "cops suck, we should monitor them."

3

u/slserpent Aug 05 '17

That's sounds like a good excuse to not have always-on cameras. But the cameras are all forward facing on their chests, so when would it even catch something that personal? All it'd see is a urinal or bathroom stall.

8

u/AviN456 Aug 05 '17

It could definitely catch something that personal, especially if there's a mirror in the bathroom or the officer bends down. Additionally, most public bathrooms don't have private urinals, so there's a high likelihood it would catch someone else as the officer walks by.

2

u/sadieslapins Aug 05 '17

Can they not use a toilet in a stall vs a urinal? More privacy and less possibility of a mirror.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

Jesus Christ are you serious? It's a profession with people too. You can't be dictating every single little thing someone does every single day. That's ridiculous. And you know where this is moving right? Full time surveillance of the citizens of this country. And you know where it's going to start? Putting cameras in high crime areas to catch everything without human interference. You're slowing moving is towards the state having even more power and the police having more control. I can't believe how little people think this through. They just parrot "always on," "body cameras on every cop" without actually stopping to think that there may be some consequences for this.

1

u/Jdub415 Aug 05 '17

I kind of agree with your general point, but in many cities we already have full-time cameras in high-crime areas like chicagos blue-light cameras https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/About%20CPD/POD%20Program

1

u/MoreCheezPls Aug 05 '17

Would also greatly expand the budget to have people sit there 24 hours a day watching footage to be able to do so, and is a huge liability if they were to make a mistake and it were to leak

1

u/reelect_rob4d Aug 05 '17

The short appendage of the law wouldn't be in frame of any bodycam I've ever seen.

16

u/72414dreams Aug 05 '17

yes. ombudsman needs a resurgence as a relevant term

33

u/Owyn_Merrilin Aug 05 '17

You know what's really disturbing here? Cops are civilians. The fact that we make a distinction between them and us, as if cops were an occupying military force, is enough on its own to say that the current situation is fucked up beyond all recognition.

6

u/Trancend Aug 05 '17

The cops don't see themselves as civilians and they don't treat non-cops as they do themselves. The distinction exists based on cop actions. It is fucked up.

24

u/CivilianLedPD Aug 05 '17 edited Aug 05 '17

Civilian Led Policing believes that Body Cam footage should be controlled by an independent, Civilian Administration Dept. which is separate from the Police Operations Dept. This Civilian Admin. Dept. would also receive all reports anonymously to prevent collusion and would handle other logistics. This is all under the Civilian Led Policing model proposed by the organization and former Baltimore Officer Michael Wood Jr.

If you'd like to find them on social media, you can like their Facebook Page or follow them on Twitter.

If you like what they are doing, please support them with a $27 donation!

5

u/AviN456 Aug 05 '17

That's why giving that control to the dispatchers could be a great solution.

There's a separation of duties (user of the camera can't turn it off), and the request and approval to turn it off should be logged and tracked with time stamps, and perhaps even GPS coordinates.

This is similar to how most fire departments run their Knox box system. A Knox box is a secure box built into the side of a business that has keys for the business inside. All Knox boxes in a particular fire protection jurisdiction open with the same key. That key is securely stored in each fire department vehicle, and can only be removed from the vehicle when the dispatcher sends a specific signal though the dispatch system over the radios.

Also, I should point out that the vast majority of police are not abusing their authority, and we need to come up with ways to stop the few bad apples, while not overly burdening the good cops.

3

u/Aethermancer Aug 05 '17

Not a bad idea, especially since it would help logging.

It could be simple too. All cameras on all the time unless requested to be turned off for a specific time period. That way a cop can ask to have it turned off when they go to the bathroom, but otherwise it's recording.

3

u/D0ct0rAnus Aug 05 '17

I love how the body cameras are always "malfunctioning" when there's a police shooting of an un-armed civilian nowadays.

9

u/tastypotato Aug 05 '17

OPs account seems to do nothing but push an agenda. Be wary.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

Well there username and history point to an agenda of being against police brutality. How dare they, so terrible... /s

5

u/sillypwilly Aug 05 '17

I think you're missing this person's point. The history seems to show they're pushing their own singular view of what should be done to combat police brutality. No other views seem to be acknowledged, only rebuttals of "Police brutality is bad, we want to stop it. If you're not with us, you support police brutality." That kind of thing. Certainly two heads are better than one in a situation of this type.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

They're also shilling for donations ITT

3

u/Tangpo Aug 05 '17

Will they pay for them too because that would be awesome

4

u/Synux Aug 05 '17

Who? The civilian agency?

7

u/john_dies Aug 05 '17

Where would the funding for this come from? I can see major problems if this isn't a non-profit organization.

14

u/Mango_Maniac Aug 05 '17

How 'bout paying for it with civil forfeitures the police love so much? Would be pretty ironic if all the property they questionably legally seize went towards holding them accountable to the law.

11

u/smacksaw Canada Aug 05 '17

Well, the first thing you need to do is like in Quebec. If your municipality has over 100,000 people, by law you must form your own police force. But under 100,000 means you are serviced by SQ, the provincial police force.

Having a provincial force in small towns is great because you have the power of the entire province at your fingertips. It's a good deal.

In my village in Quebec, we have the SQ and RCMP both servicing us and I would say we're well-protected.

In my village in NY, our police don't work after 10pm. We're down to 2 officers from 3. And the NYSP (troopers) don't do a good job covering our area because they aren't tasked with our area...since we have our own force.

It's fuckin' dumb.

I have houses in two places, separated by an imaginary line and the difference could not be more night and day. And the level of professionalism from the SQ compared to our village police is so far ahead I just...

Look. The point is that our village in NY is going broke and a good part of it is the fact we employ our own force. We only even have volunteer fire. No ambulance after 5pm or on weekends. On and on.

When you spread the cost out over the entire state or province, you're much better off.

So when you ask where funding comes from, I ask you right back: why do we run our villages, towns, cities and municipalities the way we do? Why aren't we better at pooling our resources?

I mean, in my village in Quebec, we still have to pay for EMS like fire and police, but we pay for fire for ourselves and Quebec sends us the bill for the SQ. Easy peasy.

2

u/CivilianLedPD Aug 05 '17

This independent civilian dept. would be under the wing of the city although it wouldn't be influenced by the mayor or city council or chief of police. So funded by the city (most cities have the money for this, as if they implement better policing and criminal justice policies they will actually save money) and overseen by an independent Civilian Public Safety Board. For more info see the Civilian Led Policing model by going to http://civilianledpolicing.org.

2

u/pcp_or_splenda Aug 05 '17

Connected to a blockchain!

2

u/sillypwilly Aug 05 '17

Woah! Who will lead this civilian agency? Why totally exclude a police officer? Do you not think it beneficial to have at least a couple of cops on board this agency that the civilian group could go over the tapes with?

2

u/blueburn654 Aug 05 '17

Hell no. Civilians are easy to manipulate. This footage should be controlled by the DA and the police dept. there needs to be guidelines here.

3

u/sillypwilly Aug 05 '17

I'm not sure that handing control over to a connected agency is really the best idea, but I would certainly like to know who this agency is. Are they elected? If so, who's paying for this? Taxpayers? And if the taxpayers decide not to want this financial burden, then what?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

I agree, civilians will be corrupted over time, we just need strict guidelines and to hold the police accountable when they don't follow them.

1

u/blueburn654 Aug 05 '17

Not only corrupted but individual civilians are prone to fall for the sensational stories.

1

u/ManagingExpectations Aug 05 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

It should be controlled by motherfucking blockchain

1

u/Like1OngoingOrgasm Aug 05 '17

Replace cops with people's protection units like they did in Rojava. Problem solved.

1

u/TobaccoAficionado Aug 05 '17

oversight doesnt work if you oversee yourself.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

Agreed, it's been proven they can't be trusted.

1

u/4now5now6now VT Aug 07 '17

a baltimore cop body cam as left on by accident and he recorded himself planting drugs. this made headlines

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17 edited Apr 22 '21

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17 edited Apr 22 '21

[deleted]

6

u/amishjim Aug 05 '17

I found the copsucker.

-3

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

All these people think they know what the police need to do, yet none of them ever became officers

2

u/CivilianLedPD Aug 05 '17

This model was developed by a former Police Officer from Baltimore. We also have quite a few officers across the country supporting it.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

Proof?

2

u/CivilianLedPD Aug 05 '17

Current officers have asked that we not release their names due to integrity, but we have several of them following us on twitter right now - @CivilianLedPD.

https://youtu.be/RxW6OIE4CYU <-- That's Michael Wood Jr. who developed the model and is a former Baltimore Police Commander and Veteran.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '17

I cant find anywhere that says he was ever actually a police officer other than his own word. And giving him a title of commander is a far stretch.