Results 11 to 19 of 19
-
02-09-2016, 07:05 AM #11UnregisteredGuest
Jail cameras don't use a proprietary file system. Body cams do, so it cost much more to store it. And 1 camera in a jail area covers it. Patrol and court security will have 300 cameras to the jails 1
-
02-09-2016, 08:24 AM #12UnregisteredGuest
Without revealing too many details about jail cameras, there are dozens of cameras for each wing covering all areas except staff restrooms. Storage is temporary because it is wiped off after a certain time. Court security also has many cameras. It works for other agencies, it works at the jail and courthouse so it will work in patrol.
-
02-09-2016, 01:02 PM #13UnregisteredGuest
-
02-09-2016, 06:45 PM #14UnregisteredGuest
Thanks for your intelligent reply.
You know who objects to cameras? People who fail to comply with agency policy, state and federal laws. People who do something wrong or illegal and try to cover it up or lie. Like your fellow co-worker did after the John's Pass shooting. People who cut corners and don't do their jobs correctly. Like your fellow co-worker who cut out in front of a young motorcyclist causing an accident which left the kid paralyzed. People who are slackers. Some of these must fit you perfectly because you cry so much about the cameras. It seems you want two standards here: a 24/7 complete camera coverage for the jail but no cameras for patrol. It is obvious why. If you do your job right you should not fear cameras.
-
02-09-2016, 09:31 PM #15UnregisteredGuest
Every new patrol vehicle is equipped with Coban.
-
02-22-2016, 03:51 AM #16
-
02-28-2016, 01:25 PM #17UnregisteredGuest
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/re...ors_picks=true
"That citizen tried to put that out here and say it's police brutality, but when you see the entire video, which we have because of (a) body worn camera, it protects our agency and it protects the deputy. It shows he (was) justified in his actions," Sheriff Nocco said."
-
03-04-2016, 06:42 PM #18UnregisteredGuest
Uses of force have pretty much stayed consistent for those that wear them. The citizens of Tampa that officers commonly respond to calls for service for could give a crap less that we wear a camera. They still complain on us and yes, they put themselves in circumstances that appropriate force is necessary against them.
The "study" is complete BS because in actuality they never looked at the reports written were force was used prior to the program.
The cameras were a political move to appease the city council most notably the race baiting Re****. As an officer who wears one I don't mind it. I do my job the same and act the same as I did without it.
The real issue is that there are supervisors who look at every video because they're bored. This makes for frivolous complaints of language used and time on calls etc.
This is the real problem with the cameras. It's not the cost or citizens, it's people that have too much rank and too little to do and try and make a name for themselves.
-
03-05-2016, 08:02 PM #19UnregisteredGuest
https://www.policeone.com/use-of-for...-body-cameras/
"For three years prior to the experiment, the PD posted roughly 65 use-of-force incidents per year. (UOF was considered “physical force that is greater than basic control or ‘compliance holds’ “and included OC spray, baton strikes, TASER deployment, K9 bites, or firearms.) In the year before the experiment, 24 citizens lodged grievances against officers.
During the experimental period, the UOF rate dropped significantly, to 25 incidents total, a reduction of 58 percent to 64 percent compared to previous years. Only eight of the incidents occurred when officers were wearing body cams. In other words, during the test period the likelihood of force being used was roughly doubled when cameras were not deployed."
Bookmarks