Briton wrote:

Steve wrote:
With the police using body cameras I heard the complaints dropped through the floor. And it isn't all due to police misconduct. Plenty of complaints are trumped up by the complainer. But if there is a recording being made it is that much harder to bullshit about it.

Where do you get your evidence for that? No doubt it happens but I'd be surprised if false complaints are not hugely out numbered by police abuse. What's the point of making a false complaint in any case? Nothing is going to happen if it's just your word against a cop. Sounds like a red herring to me.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Ok in the states everything is already so fucked up a camera is not going to make any difference but in Europe I think we have not reached that level of aggression.

Teague wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Ok in the states everything is already so fucked up a camera is not going to make any difference but in Europe I think we have not reached that level of aggression.

But it is making a difference, like people have repeatedly told you in this thread

Scot Dutchy wrote:Ok in the states everything is already so fucked up a camera is not going to make any difference but in Europe I think we have not reached that level of aggression.

Researchers from the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology (IoC) have now published the first full scientific study of the landmark crime experiment they conducted on policing with body-worn-cameras in Rialto, California in 2012 — the results of which have been cited by police departments around the world as justification for rolling out this technology.

The experiment showed that evidence capture is just one output of body-worn video, and the technology is perhaps most effective at actually preventing escalation during police-public interactions: whether that’s abusive behaviour towards police or unnecessary use-of-force by police.

The researchers say the knowledge that events are being recorded creates “self-awareness” in all participants during police interactions. This is the critical component that turns body-worn video into a ‘preventative treatment’: causing individuals to modify their behaviour in response to an awareness of ‘third-party’ surveillance by cameras acting as a proxy for legal courts — as well as courts of public opinion — should unacceptable behaviour take place.

During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year’s figures.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I think it is the wrong move. If procedures are followed and the force is well trained there is no need of them. It is just another step towards robocop which is the mentality in America but not in Europe.

Teague wrote:What do you mean by "central control"?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Teague wrote:What do you mean by "central control"?

Using the camera's to direct the men(robots).

Teague wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Teague wrote:What do you mean by "central control"?

Using the camera's to direct the men(robots).

So you mean in the next 500 years?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Teague wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Teague wrote:What do you mean by "central control"?

Using the camera's to direct the men(robots).

So you mean in the next 500 years?

No Teague within the decade well in America at least.

Teague wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Teague wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Using the camera's to direct the men(robots).

So you mean in the next 500 years?

No Teague within the decade well in America at least.

So in 10 years we're going to have fully automated robots that can chase down suspects and arrest them? If that's the case they would be doing trials now and going through development - do you have any links to either of these?