- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Police Body Camera question - officers watching the video
Posted on 10/13/16 at 12:35 pm
Posted on 10/13/16 at 12:35 pm
Help me out with this as I am legit confused, they had a riot in Portland yesterday over the issue of police body cameras. Specifically, allowing officers to view the video prior to writing their reports. The protestors don't want the officers to be allowed to view the video. This confuses me.
If you let them watch the video and their report then accurately reflects the events as they occurred, how is that a bad thing? Is the idea that they want every small inconsistency to be an argument for people to get out of charges? Does anyone think that they remember things 100% accurately in a stressful situation?
I am not talking about an obvious misstatement of facts like saying someone had a gun when they didn't but rather small things like the exact words in a confession or which pocket an officer finds something in, etc.
From the article if you are interested:
If you let them watch the video and their report then accurately reflects the events as they occurred, how is that a bad thing? Is the idea that they want every small inconsistency to be an argument for people to get out of charges? Does anyone think that they remember things 100% accurately in a stressful situation?
I am not talking about an obvious misstatement of facts like saying someone had a gun when they didn't but rather small things like the exact words in a confession or which pocket an officer finds something in, etc.
From the article if you are interested:
quote:
Police used pepper spray and arrested 10 people as demonstrators stormed City Hall in Portland, Oregon, Wednesday trying to stop the City Council from voting on a new police contract that includes more pay for officers and raised questions about the future use of body cameras.
Police watchdog groups grew concerned earlier this month when an initial version of the contract guaranteed officers the right to view body camera footage before writing up any non-fatal encounters with civilians.
That language led to several smaller protests and sit-ins in the weeks leading up to Wednesday's vote.
4
Posted on 10/13/16 at 12:40 pm to jbgleason
There is science to prove that any common person can not remember every detail of intense incidents.
Your mind will focus more on certain parts rather than seeing the whole picture due to what's occurring.
Your mind will focus more on certain parts rather than seeing the whole picture due to what's occurring.
Posted on 10/13/16 at 12:57 pm to Fat and Happy
quote:
There is science to prove that any common person can not remember every detail of intense incidents.
Your mind will focus more on certain parts rather than seeing the whole picture due to what's occurring.
I know which brings me back to my point. Who benefits by the officer not writing an accurate report?
Posted on 10/13/16 at 1:14 pm to jbgleason
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/8/20 at 10:19 am
Posted on 10/13/16 at 1:32 pm to jbgleason
I suppose the argument centers around the veracity of the officer's recollection and subsequent report.
I doubt the body camera picks up everything that occurs (maybe stuff happens prior to the camera engaging, things happen outside the camera's POV, etc.), so if the body camera video matches what the officer's report states, the more likely the portions (if any) of the report which happen off-camera are believable?
Does that make sense?
I doubt the body camera picks up everything that occurs (maybe stuff happens prior to the camera engaging, things happen outside the camera's POV, etc.), so if the body camera video matches what the officer's report states, the more likely the portions (if any) of the report which happen off-camera are believable?
Does that make sense?
Posted on 10/13/16 at 1:34 pm to gallagherkck
quote:
I doubt the body camera picks up everything that occurs (maybe stuff happens prior to the camera engaging, things happen outside the camera's POV, etc.), so if the body camera video matches what the officer's report states, the more likely the portions (if any) of the report which happen off-camera are believable?
Not being sarcastic but you are saying that if his report matches the video then he can get away with telling lies about stuff not on the video? Is that right?
Posted on 10/13/16 at 1:40 pm to jbgleason
Not at all.
Rather, if the video portions match the officer's report, then any portions not caught on video are more likely to be believed.
I think this is why people want an office to file his report prior to watching the video; to avoid having an officer use the video to help him/her "remember" what happened.
Rather, if the video portions match the officer's report, then any portions not caught on video are more likely to be believed.
I think this is why people want an office to file his report prior to watching the video; to avoid having an officer use the video to help him/her "remember" what happened.
Posted on 10/13/16 at 1:42 pm to Fat and Happy
quote:
There is science to prove that any common person can not remember every detail of intense incidents.
In most jurisdictions officers are required to take at least 48 hrs before writing their reports when use of force is used for this very reason. This is in the DOJ recommended guidelines for use of force. This gives the officer time to come down from the emotional\physical stress of the event.
Posted on 10/13/16 at 1:43 pm to jbgleason
quote:
I know which brings me back to my point. Who benefits by the officer not writing an accurate report?
Bad guy benefits when it goes to court and gets thrown out because the report was faulty. This is proof that people will literally bitch about anything and everything.
Posted on 10/13/16 at 2:04 pm to TaderSalad
quote:
Bad guy benefits when it goes to court and gets thrown out because the report was faulty.
This is true.
Small discrepancies are often forgiven, but if there's a large one, it makes the case tougher for the State because the officer's credibility is shot.
I think the desire is to use the video as an "unbiased third-party" to verify or discredit the officer's testimony and recollection. Viewing the video prior to writing a report would ruin that theory.
Posted on 10/13/16 at 2:27 pm to jbgleason
Why even use paper. Require every officer to wear a functioning body cam then he has to narrate the video the FIRST time that he watches it. That becomes the official record. Paper is overrated.
Posted on 10/13/16 at 2:33 pm to 75503Tiger
quote:
Why even use paper.
When we say "write a report" we really mean we are typing it on a laptop. Paper is seldom used.
I have interviewed officers after a shooting and got three different versions of the event. In a traumatic event people get tunnel vision and sometimes are totally unaware of things that happened outside of what they would see if they did not have tunnel vision. They focused on one thing and everything else became a blur.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News