Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Minneapolis Police Body Cameras

How about thoughts regarding MP Police Body Cameras. Here are my comments from there.
"They say it does not increase accountability... I don't think I would want to be an officer who got a serious complaint and did not have it on... Imagine if the Jamar Clark officers had opted to leave it off...(if they had them)

They are worried that the officers report may be more accurate and complete if they review the video. How is this a bad thing? I would find someway to cut the video and attach it into the report. (ie shorter reports...)

What would they do if someone like Jamar asked the officer to turn it off before the incident? Under what instances can the Officers say no to a request to turn it off?

Since this is all new cost with no offsetting cost reduction, and much of the officers time is waiting / watching, running it all day would be expensive with no benefit...

Finally, the goal is not perfection. Perfection is expensive. If perfection is 10 steps forward, it sounds like this takes them about 7 steps forward. Much better than today." G2A
More from the MP Clark Ruling, the comments keep coming 


John said...

From MP.

"I was a cop for a long time, we didn't have any kind of camera's and many times not even portable radios, but if I were a cop now the way people complain about every little thing, I would turn the body camera on when I started my shift and wouldn't turn it off until the end of my shift. People complain and protest so much they don't have any credibility anymore. Maybe every cop should just have a film crew with them 24/7. It is ridiculous how people complain. There used to be an old saying that you can't make everybody happy. That needs to be changed to, today you can't make anybody happy. I feel truly sorry for these young cops today, because they risk their health and their lives on daily basis, just to have a bunch of people who complain about them and on top of that most of the complainers are not accurate in their eyewitness accounts. Experts have found evidence to suggest that eyewitness memory is fallible..] It has long been speculated that mistaken eyewitness identification plays a major role in the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals. A growing body of research now supports this speculation, indicating that mistaken eyewitness identification is responsible for more convictions of the innocent than all other factors combined The Innocence Project determined that 75% of the 239 DNA exoneration cases had occurred due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony. That is 180 people who spent years prison because of inaccurate eyewitness testimony. It is important to inform the public about the flawed nature of eyewitness memory and the difficulties relating to its use in the criminal justice system so that eyewitness accounts are not viewed as the absolute truth." Kenneth

Just remember that the critical folk are just a very vocal minority. The vast majority are very thankful that the officers are out there facing the challenges/risks and doing the job that almost none of us would be willing to do for twice the money...

Personally I think all officers have to be a little crazy... Who willingly walks up to very upset or high people who may be carrying a gun or knife? I personally thank the officers for their dedication !!!
" G2A

John said...

An interesting piece that was on WCCO TV last night regarding deadly force training and experience for civilians.

I think Mpls should hold this for the BLM supporters. Maybe at night in N Mpls...

jerrye92002 said...

I just have to wonder if body cameras were available and the complete ugly truth were available clearly on the video, if the BLM folks would simply dismiss it as they dismiss all other evidence not matching their predetermined storyline?

John said...

Based on the comments here, I don't think even cameras will sway the opinions of these folks.

"In reading Ibrahim Hirsi's pieces on this topic and all of the comments to this point, one of the main things I've noticed is the majority of commenter's propensity to accept and defend the officer's and Mr. Freeman's statements (primarily) as the gold standard of evidence against which all views must be measured.

Or something like that. The long and short is there seems to be a certain amount of "Open and Shut Slamdunkism" that has been happening since about 10 minutes after Mr. Freeman got done saying what he had to say (way back) on March 30th which has made me wonder ever since how many of those referring to and defending that gold standard evidence have listened to his statement or, maybe more importantly, taken a close look at what some of that evidence actually says.

I mention that because there's one relatively small chunk of it contained in a handful of paragraphs in the "Clark Chronology" section of Mr. Freeman's online statement that I'm surprised hasn't raised more questions than it maybe should have.

Take a (or another) look at the five paragraphs under the headings "MPD Officers Arrive" and "Clark Grabs for Ringgenberg’s Gun" (on page two) and see it you see anything (fundamental and practical as can be) that doesn't seem to quite add up.

Henn County Att

And then, if you've got time and are curious, do a little searching on Mark Ringgenberg's and Dustin Schwarze's work history or law enforcement experience (be sure to include San Diego in your M R search and, for bonus points, throw in "Fred Clark, Jr." on that one and "tasering" in your D S search).

See if you see anything that makes you wonder why they (the primary eye-witnesses in this case) were hired in the first place and why anyone who's serious about "deescalation, better community communications and relations" would ever partner them up and put them in an after-midnight North Minneapolis-bound squad car." Bill

"I reviewed their past "possible transgressions". It looks like nothing ever came of the accusations / suits. You will need to clarify your "doesn't add up" perception.

As for Gold Standard... They are human so I am sure there are inconsistencies, gaps, etc. However they were also sober, near the action, etc. Also, apparently the physical evidence aligned with their report. It sounds like Freeman used the old saying. "trust but verify"

I am so puzzled what the rational is for wanting to tear down 2 officers, while putting a convicted criminal and the witnesses / party goers on pedestals... Do you still believe that Jamar was handcuffed when he was shot? Even though the physical evidence shows otherwise. What will it take to convince folks that the witnesses who claimed this got it wrong?
" G2A

jerrye92002 said...

Hmmm. I do not see a single solitary thing that doesn't add up. What am I missing? The officers' "story" seems entirely consistent with the forensic evidence, with each other, and with other official witnesses-- the EMTs and so on.

Sean said...

I'll just leave this here.

Study finds police fatally shoot unarmed black men at disproportionate rates

"The only thing that was significant in predicting whether someone shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black,” said Justin Nix, a criminal justice researcher at the University of Louisville and one of the report’s authors. “Crime variables did not matter in terms of predicting whether the person killed was unarmed.”

In the study, researchers wrote that their analysis of the 990 shootings in 2015 “suggests the police exhibit shooter bias by falsely perceiving blacks to be a greater threat than non-blacks to their safety.”

John said...

"Researchers, who used data collected by The Post, found that when other factors are considered the racial disparity persists, but it is lower — twice the rate for unarmed black men compared to unarmed white men. Researchers adjusted for the age of the person shot, whether the person suffered from mental illness, whether the person was attacking a police officer and for the crime rate in the neighborhood where the shooting occurred."

What I do not see here is "style/ attitudes/ class"? The one factor that I think makes a big difference. Did the criminal appear threatening, verbally abuse the officer, resist arrest, etc? Also, I think they should have a adjusted for time of day...

"In the study, researchers wrote that their analysis of the 990 shootings in 2015 “suggests the police exhibit shooter bias by falsely perceiving blacks to be a greater threat than non-blacks to their safety.”

"falsely" ??? Politifact And this from a Left of center outlet...

John said...

Race Card Project

Sean said...

Last time I checked wearing a hoodie or verbally abusing an officer or even resisting arrest was not a capital offense. We routinely see white folks who engage in such behavior (or worse) dealt with successfully.

Armed, Arrested, and Alive

jerrye92002 said...

Sorry, but I am simply not seeing the equivalence to most of these cases. A man was accused of domestic assault and interfering with emergency personnel. He appeared threatening and refused a lawful order repeatedly. He resisted arrest and apparently attempted to kill an officer. What here, absent some non-lethal tool that was not available at the time, could have prevented this tragedy OTHER than better choices made by the suspect?

I will grant that it's possible that Clark's drug and alcohol high interfered with his better judgment, but the cops didn't know that. Maybe tasers should be standard issue.

Sean said...

"A man was accused of domestic assault and interfering with emergency personnel."

At no point did Clark physically interfere with the paramedics. He had a verbal confrontation with one of them, but Clark responded to requests from the paramedics and the supervisor who arrived on scene before police to move away. The police, once on scene, never told him he was under arrest or even suspicion of being involved in a crime.

"He appeared threatening and refused a lawful order repeatedly."

It's interesting to note that the paramedic supervisor who was on scene reports that the officers in fact never asked Clark to take his hands out of his pockets (see page 802 of BCA Report) and the one officer pulled his weapon almost immediately.

jerrye92002 said...

That's a not unreasonable interpretation of events, but I'm not certain it comports with the preponderance of the evidence. If we're hazarding guesses-- perhaps inappropriate in such tragedies, but-- I would guess that the guy was involved somehow as a "concerned" (not innocent) participant in the affair, and took offense at being asked to step aside and then accused (perhaps falsely) of something by the police. At some point, though, he had the opportunity to defuse the situation and did not. The police acted on the information (incomplete, inaccurate) they had.