Often in our early-morning sit-downs, we cover light, different, and a little bit of the “out-there.”
But this morning, we begin with the serious side.
There are two items which you really need to think about because they both involve aspects of freedom – living in the democratic republic – for which we stand.
So there I was Saturday morning, relaxed and half-snoozing when the phone rings.
It was a long-time subscriber to Peoplenomics® who is a public official in a large governmental unit. And elected official, whose name I won’t give, this man’s one of the watchdogs of freedom…
He’s the sort of elected official who actually reads proposed laws, thinks about them, holds them up to the measure of his state and the federal constitution. In other words, exactly the kind of fellow you’d want in office representing the general public: He’s open to all sides of issues and conscientiously votes what he finds in his heart to be in keeping with core American concepts.
In short, a really good guy.
So why was he calling me to chat about a law-making issue? I’ll paraphrase…
“George, I wanted to see what your feelings are about chest-cameras for our police officers. I’ m wrestling with this one…
Not exactly the kind of thing to wake up from a Saturday morning snooze with a sharp answer for, but I rolled through the pros and cons as I saw them:
On the pro side:
1. The presence of a chest-cam protects the officer from charges of excessive force, charges of abuse of power, and is a pretty good record of how a suspect is reacting and behaving.
2. In the event of violence against an officer, anyone committing violence against an officer would likely b e captured on video along with critical other evidence…so it protects the officer again.
On the con side, however:
1. Who will review the video tape? Will entire shift content be videoed, or will only initial responses? What is policy on when to “roll tape” and to go cameras off?
2. One that video is in police custody, what is the likelihood that the video will be scanned in the future using facial recognition software and a “potential criminal file” started, even if the police questioned a suspect (* you for example) and then went on their merry way?
Would this kind of uncertainty over future disposition of footage outweigh the improved safety (and quality of evidence) that the chest-cam provides?
The police right to take and use video in public places is pretty well established.
But suppose a neighbor of your says (lying of course) that you are growing six marijuana plants and calls the cops because of the smell and your grow lights keeping the neighbor awake.
The cops show up, cameras running, but knowing your neighbor is a prick, you’ve killed the lights and turned on the exhaust fans. You really have 17-plants growing.
Opening the front door, you have a chat with the officers, who video the encounter…but since you have the fans on and they don’t have a warrant, that’s the end of it.
Except, when they get back to the station, a video operator uses the newly developed THC fluorescence filter and notices a tiny spot on the carpet in the background on the floor while you were chatting. Shouldn’t have dropped that dutchie, boy. Ja’maica mistake?
“OMG, the THC Filter says there has been weed in this house. This is grounds for a warrant!”
The cops them come back, impound your plants and you’ve off to jail along with a perfectly good chain of custody to back up their case.
We chat about the Constitutional balance for a while,. but I eventually come down on the side of the police chestcams, because a couple of cameras rolling on crime would possibly prevent future “people acting badly” cases like Ferguson and Baltimore.
And please note that I didn’t say which people. Just, people because there are racists of all colors and power and positional authority abusers of all colors – I’ve met representatives of most.
My called continued…
“The other problem we have is that if we download the camera footage to a government-owned server, under the public records laws of this state, that video is all DISCOVERABLE for two years.
So not only could a lawyer for a defendant secure all the footage about a partcular crime but they could also go fishing through all the video ever recorded by an officer and fine unrelated cases which might then be cast as showing an officers predisposition to act in a certain way…”
I figure the way to prevent this kind of lawyering would be to limit lawyer access to only the case video where the lawyer’s client is involved. Otherwise, the lawyer could conceivably also drag in people with no criminal record (those questioned by an officer whose character the lawyer is trying assassinate) and they have no business being privy to that.
Moreover, when would the chest cams go on? I think at the officer’s discretion or when they arrive at the scene of a call…their discretion.
The reasoning here is that an HR department or internal investigations would have a field day with off-hand remarks between officers between calls. I have many friends who are cops – damn good professionals – but some of the sh*t you see in the field can and does get reduced to hardcore language which wouldn’t pass PG-13, if’n you follow.
“If you have any more ideas, George, let me know?”
Well, as it turns out, I did.
Toss it out for readers (that’d be you if the coffee is still perking) to comment on and pass along the comments to my elected official friend as soon as possible.
Chestcams on police don’t bother me. Adding a requirement that timecode be inserted so there’s no “after-the-fact” editing, would be a good idea, too.
Your comments welcomed…I will pass them along…
How We Lose of Freedom: Virtualizing the U.S.A.
The second serious point (before we wander into the less serious stuff) is to recount the simple revelation in this weekend’s Peoplenomics report because it explains how Trade Laws are going to be used to Trump Civil and Constitutional Law.
It’s all there for the reading on the www.wikileaks.org site. It is contained in the Chapter Four contents of TPA and the TISA b.s.
Simply it works like this:
Under present law, if a trading company out of Taiwan, or example, has a beef with a US company, it can bring suit in the U.S.
Read More