cop body camera

[Xavier_Onassis]

They will only have to review maybe one in a hundred recordings. Most police actions are uncontested, and with body cams, I think that number would go down.

[sirs]

No, EVERY RECORDING will have to be reviewed.  You can't take the risk of missing something.  Which is why I made the reference to other options, such as the recording only starts when the patrol car is put into park....or when the officer indicates he's initiating some action via radio, which then prompts an automatic start record.  It can't be recording all the time.  That's just too much extra manpower to hire simply to view alot of nothing

[kimba1]

why must every recording  be reviewed??
reviewing all logs doesn`t mean they`ll catch something. I stated I do crazy inappropriate stuff all the time and never gets question because it never counter to my duties but you would think somebody would be mention my perceived groin problem.

not all building security vids are reviewed. none of my written logs are reviewed. it`s all stored till an incident is brought up and all that's needed is time and date to access.

what you suggested will run risk of not recording of a incident, but it would allow bathroom breaks.

[sirs]

I think I already answered that......because you might miss something.....someone standing next to a mailbox....someone in a doorway....someone bending over with their head in a car.  All of that could be perfectly innocent.  Yet, it all could be precursors to a criminal act.  The person by the mailbox just dropped an IED into it.  The person in the doorway is a lookout to a crime going on inside.  The person bending over with their head in the car, is about to pull out an illegal automatic weapon.  Whatever is recorded, must be reviewed.  Which is why to minimize so much dead time (no pun intended) to review, that any such recorders are started at certain times, to minimize the amount of manpower that'd be required to review every second of video

....because if you don't review what you had on video, and something did happen, as noted in the examples above, its lawsuit city

[kimba1]

I don't recall any lawsuit for any business who has a video camera for security. Pretty sure no law would be made to punish businesses for having a security camera except on issues of privacy.

Your talking videos for preventive measures and that legally speaking might not happen. The samples you pointed out  maybe used for evidence afterwards but not sure it can be done as a precaution. So my method would be the most likely since it uses minimul review and nothing is lost. You did state your method is highly costly and thats why it would be rejected.

[sirs]

A business isn't in the business of law enforcement.  They're just covering themselves  Apples/Oranges here. 

"Might", in the world of litigation we live in today, especially with the erroneous notion that city coffers are endless, the 1st time a video shows that some thug had pulled out an illegal assault rifle, and shot up a business district, every family member that had someone shot or killed, where the video may have identified, possibly (not saying it would, only "might" have) stopped a such an action, that city/county will be sued until the tax payers pockets become dry

I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be video, only trying to maximize the usefulness at the least amount of cost to the tax payer.  I like the notion that a video automatically starts upon an officer's call on his radio, that he sees or is about to stop someone

[kimba1]

not really sure legally viable for anyone to sue on this matter. the video by intent is a record to be refered to. prevention at this very moment is only guesswork since bodycams is a new venture . we`ll see

[sirs]

If something bad happened that was on a police video that could have been reviewed but wasn't,  there'd be multiple lawsuits.   Cities and counties have been sued for far less

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is absurd.
They will not be expected to review every recording by any court, and only need to review those events after the fact when there is reason to do so.

[kimba1]

but due to the fact that we all agree it`s just not viable to review all those vids may legally support not being done despite any possible lawsuit. anyone can think stuff can be done but that doesn`t it can be enforced.


you know what ! I hope this happens and it makes big news . I would love to know what idiot expert witness will testify it`s totally doable.


sirs
I`ll bet you want to know this idiot also

[Christians4LessGvt]

i would think these cop camera films will be on a loop like many security cameras
that's the way the security cameras at our office work
I believe we save the video for 48 hours
if nothing happens and we don't go in and save any of the frames
the device automatically erases the film and starts the loop again

this type system is not going to cover 100% of every possible eventuality
but it works for most probable scenarios and is cost effective

[kimba1]

length of storage is pretty much a judgement thing since thiers no law mandating how long or even doing it at all