Citizen oversight of the police? Good or Bad?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by donegeal
This is a bad idea for two main reasons:

1) The people on the revisory board will now think that they can get away with anything because they could terminate the employment of anybody pulling them over.

2 and more importantly) No one would want to be Police Officers anymore and the one we have would want to quit.

Most major American cities have civilan revue boards overseeing cases of police misconduct. This stems from the late 60s and early 70s, when police corruption was exposed in many cities, along with evidence of police spying on political activists, and greater awareness of police brutality. It was felt, rightly, that the political administration was too close to the police to effectively oversee them. Civilian revue, however, is largely a paper tiger. It sounds fearsome, but is devoid of teeth.

The civilian oversight committees in Chicago, for example, for no cause to discipline officers accused of torture, despite said torture being proven in court, despite a massive report from Amnesty International (the first report ever by that organization against civilian police in the US), despite the firing of the commander in charge of the precinct where the torture was occuring. "Move along, nothing to see here you lookee loos."

Who watches the watchman? We entrust an organtization with the right to use force, up to and including deadly force. We have an obligation, therefore, to watch over them to ensure they are acting in a legal manner.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
For the life of me I can't understand why cops seem to feel obligated to give their unquestioning support to fellow officers who turn rogue. I would think that a good cop would have more interest in seeing a rogue officer punished than the average citizen, since the rogue cop erodes community trust and diminishes the good cops prestige. Instead it appears that their fellow officers will bend over backwards to excuse them even to the point of condoning outright murder.

This has always confused me as well.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Beware of people with cameras at protests. They can be undercover cops. To find out, pretend you know them by slapping them on the small of their back. Thats where their gun usually is. Then say 'Oh I'm sorry, you arn't richahrd/lolitta.' Works every time. (unless their gun is on their ankle, but police guns are big, so you could see a big bulge if it was there i think.

[Sava]

If I had my way:

I would put a camera on every single police officer (i.e. like in Aliens, the cameras would be on them). Also, I would put cameras in lots of public places. This would aid law enforcement in a big way, especially if there is facial recognition. It would also help to clean up corruption by making cops more accountable for their actions. The only drawback is the possibility of abuse of the surveillance. But in a democracy, where government is accountable to the people (or at least it should be this way), such abuses could be prevented.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Sava
If I had my way:

I would put a camera on every single police officer (i.e. like in Aliens, the cameras would be on them). Also, I would put cameras in lots of public places. This would aid law enforcement in a big way, especially if there is facial recognition. It would also help to clean up corruption by making cops more accountable for their actions. The only drawback is the possibility of abuse of the surveillance. But in a democracy, where government is accountable to the people (or at least it should be this way), such abuses could be prevented.

[Sava]

[chequita guevara]

Tampa has removed it's public cameras after having quite a few problems with them.

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Tampa has removed it's public cameras after having quite a few problems with them.

User error?

I don't think Florida should be a benchmark for anything.

[Az]

Video Cameras are great. they can really reduce crime. And what's the deal with abuse of the surveillance? If someone wants to follow you, he can do it easily. He doesn't need any Video camera to do it.

[Dis]

now putting cameras on the officers is going too far. It isn't practical and may interfere with their movement. That just sends a message that you don't trust them, and they are scum.

But oversight boards are always a good idea like I said above.

[Sava]

Diss: I don't think so. Cameras in police cars hasn't been a problem. And if we can get smaller cameras integrated into a police uniform, I don't see the problem. If anything, it would aid the police officer in debunking false claims of brutality. Cameras also are good in improving tactics. I was watching one of those police chase shows where an officer was killed by three guys that jumped him. The footage was able to aid in the development of tactics that have saved lives.

[Dis]

well if they get the cameras small enough to be effective and small and lightweight, then I say they may be worth a try. You're right, the cameras in the cars have been good in so many cases. Often it is used to convict the criminals of attacking the police.

[Sava]

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want cops to have to carry huge, lumbering devices.

[Az]

Cop A: Freeze, Or I'll shoot!
Cop B: wait a sec, let me get a good angle, the lighting sucks.

[Ramo]

Of course it's good thing.

A police department not accountable to the community over which it has jurisdiction will act arbitrarily. Why bother with the pretense of having a democracy when the police aren't accountable to their community?

The Austin City Council (in opposition to public opinon) recently renegged on promises to citizen reform groups guaranteeing citizen oversight over police in the latest contract with the Austin Police Association. Our oversight organization is totally toothless due to the loopholes in the agreement.

For instance, there's an amendment that insures a lengthy arbitration process whenever the city and the APA disagree. And because there's a rule that prevents the disciplining of police officers after 180 days from the incident, the APA can always veto any attempt at checking police abuse. And it does precisely that.