Let's Talk about the Calgary Police Service

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Well, no I disagree. I responded to Lockes post and said I hope he’s convicted and given the appropriate sentence. Locke said he’s doubtful it’ll happen or something to that effect. So, it would appear that he’s doubting the judiciary will convict.

To your point about police standing around watching George Floyd, yeah absolutely someone should have intervened. And given the massive public backlash I do think that police will be acutely aware of future situations like that and intervene.

Fair point.

To Locke's point, I am not sure we have the same record in Canada of letting bad cops off the hook. But this may be partly because, like in this case, by the time it gets to court it is, or should be, a slam dunk. My comment would be why it does not get to court as often as we suspect it should.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

That is the legal framework in which our society operates.

It is, but if cops are not collecting evidence about their 'brothers' nothing else can happen.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Can you give some examples about when it wouldn't be appropriate? I'm having trouble thinking of any. I mean, it's not like the cameras are live-streamed over the internet.

Also, how is it decided when the camera is on and isn't?

The bathroom is always the first one that comes to mind, as ever (and noted a couple other places). Especially if it's a public bathroom, as they don't know who else is in there (unless they are attending the bathroom as a call to remove someone, of course).

When meeting with a CI

When meeting with an anonymous tip giver (or one who wishes to remain anonymous)

When a person isn't fully clothed (for whatever reason) should they be videoed?

Victim interviews are also a tricky area. Some could argue that that is a very good time for a camera (I'm on the fence, personally) but what if the victim refuses?

Can someone interacting with the police refuse to do so if they don't want to be recorded? Especially in their own house, for instance? Or on private property?

One concern folks don't think about (that I get a lot, as a 911 operator) is how good is the mic on the camera? How much can it 'catch' in how wide an area around the officer and is that actionable? Especially if the folks talking don't know they are being recorded.

Should it be on when dealing with a child sexual assault victim?

Most of the known issues around 24/7 cameras stem around the thorny issue of privacy. There is a lot of back and forth legal wrangling between body cameras and FOIP and the collection of private data (such as the inside of ones home) to begin with.

Can the videos be FOIP requested? Imagine one domestic partner being able to foip the body cam footage of the police's on-scene interview with their partner, so they know exactly what was said.

Those are the situations I can think of, off the top of my head.

And I've heard the "body cam's should be live-streamed' argument before, which just literally made me laugh out loud. If shows like "Live PD", "Border Security" and "COPS" can get into privacy related lawsuits/issues, a live-stream would be a gongshow of trouble.

To the best of my knowledge (and again, I don't know CPS exact policy or how it's enacted here) the body cam is allowed to be off if you are not responding to a call for service. There seems to be some flexibility about driving there, but I'm given to understand that before you interact with the person(s) involved in the call, the camera is supposed to be on. Again though, not an officer, and don't know the exact policy or any of the nuance around it.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Titan

It is, but if cops are not collecting evidence about their 'brothers' nothing else can happen.

You’re right, and that’s why there is such a huge amount of trust placed in our police and when that trust is broken the punishment should be severe. There are also more police oversight agencies nowadays to investigate serious police misconduct/criminal investigations which I think is a good thing.

All in all, I don’t believe police coverups (in Canada anyway) are common at all. When they do come to light there is public outrage as there should be.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Titan

I also think there should be an independent person that reviews random bodycam videos daily. The police really need to demonstrate unbiased reviews of police actions.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not like the video is being reviewed by anyone. No one's ever going to see the lunch and bathroom footage, because - again - who cares.

Titan's point is oft-repeated by body-cam advocates. Begin to see the problem?

It's also a matter of privacy. If the cop walk into a mall food court and goes to the food court bathroom, taking a video of everyone he passes while taking a leak, who's taking a leak at the same time he is, and then as he leaves (post washing his hands)...and that info is also FOIP'able? You don't have/see privacy concerns/issues there?

Society is pretty much against (with good reason) cameras in bathrooms. You can't walk in with your cell video'ing, take footage of the stall wall, and leave without upsetting probably everyone else in there. I know that I'd be pretty uncomfortable in a public bathroom if anyone, police included, walked in with an active camera. It's just not done.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Titan's point is oft-repeated by body-cam advocates. Begin to see the problem?

It's also a matter of privacy. If the cop walk into a mall food court and goes to the food court bathroom, taking a video of everyone he passes while taking a leak, who's taking a leak at the same time he is, and then as he leaves (post washing his hands)...and that info is also FOIP'able? You don't have/see privacy concerns/issues there?

Society is pretty much against (with good reason) cameras in bathrooms. You can't walk in with your cell video'ing, take footage of the stall wall, and leave without upsetting probably everyone else in there. I know that I"d be pretty uncomfortable in a public bathroom if anyone, police included, walked in with an active camera. It's just not done.

The first and easiest is don't film in bathrooms when there for personal use. I can live with that. The rest is manageable with legislation/regulations. I can't foip any random police report. Why would I be able to foip a video? Easy to carve these things out. However, I think the regulations need to be made in concert with civilians of some sort. Unfortunately, the police have lost a lot of trust in being able to effectively manage these issues internally. All of your concerns in the above post could be addressed by policy.
Perhaps it is not reasonable, but if an officer needs to speak to a CI (or whatever example you want to use), he reports it to you and/or a Sgt. has to approve turning it off. I would also argue the video is no different than speaking to an officer so the same privacy rules would/should apply.

Also, as someone that worked on CPS/Fire accidents when at the City, as soon as they activate to respond to a call the camera should be one to ensure they are following "hot response" or whatever they are called protocols.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Titan

The first and easiest is don't film in bathrooms when there for personal use. I can live with that. The rest is manageable with legislation/regulations. I can't foip any random police report. Why would I be able to foip a video? Easy to carve these things out. However, I think the regulations need to be made in concert with civilians of some sort. Unfortunately, the police have lost a lot of trust in being able to effectively manage these issues internally. All of your concerns in the above post could be addressed by policy.
Perhaps it is not reasonable, but if an officer needs to speak to a CI, he reports it to you and/or a Sgt. has to approve turning it off.

Also, as someone that worked on CPS/Fire accidents when at the City, as soon as they activate to respond to a call the camera should be one to ensure they are following "hot response" or whatever they are called protocols.

Some in car cameras operate this way. As soon as the emergency lights are activated it records, and actually shows 30 seconds prior to the lights being activated when it’s retrieved for review. Maybe that could be connected to a body cam as well?

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Titan

The first and easiest is don't film in bathrooms when there for personal use.

But...if the cameras are on 24/7 and are made so that an officer can't turn them off, how do you work this?

I can't foip any random police report.

Yes, you actually can. You would need to pay the foip fee for it, but you absolutely can. It'd also likely come heavily redacted, but you still can do so.

This is why legislation, policy and law are still being navigated. I hold out hope that they'll get there, eventually.

Also, as someone that worked on CPS/Fire accidents when at the City, as soon as they activate to respond to a call the camera should be one to ensure they are following "hot response" or whatever they are called protocols.

Is that only for 'hot response' only or for any response? I am on the fence there myself, honestly. I kind of feel that as soon as they 'accept' the call that they are 'responding' and should activate their BWC. But if they are going to a lower priority call, they may go to the bathroom and hit the drive-through first...can they turn their camera off for that, or because they are already 'responding' it's too late and the BWC must stay on? Should policy say they need to turn it on when they are "a couple blocks away" from the call site? Or is as long as it's not a "hot response" call, it's ok if it's turned on by the time they are a couple steps from the car after arriving?

There are a lot of scenarios, and I'm kinda glad I'm not involved in the policy making process...though I also think it'd be neat to be involved.

[Titan]

Lots of variables to be sure. If the car cam is on then the BWC may not need to be. It is to defend the liability claims enroute that is the point here.

[PepsiFree]

Camera conversation aside, the one thing I don't understand about Zulu's position is that, knowing misconduct will happen and that we shouldn't accept it but understand that it will, we should still accept policing as it currently is today and should avoid "burning it down" because there's no better way to do it.

Maybe I'm misrepresenting the position, so if so, I'm sorry, but I do not buy for a second that this is the best policing can be, nor do I believe that completely rebuilding it from the bottom up is a worse idea than pouring more money to active slow change over time, or just leaving it the way it is.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Titan's point is oft-repeated by body-cam advocates. Begin to see the problem?

Sure I do. I just think it's a problem that's easily solvable by legislation. No, body cams are not FOIP-able on request, but are obtainable through a court-supervised process. No, body cam footage is not reviewed by third parties or anyone else unless there is an investigation into the officer's conduct or for use in a prosecution.

Obviously that's off the top of my head, but you have to think that it wouldn't be particularly difficult to come up with a regime to deal with this that doesn't allow officers to choose for themselves when they get to shut off the very thing that's there to oversee their conduct in interactions with the public.

The other, easier method is that if you're going to shut off your camera you need to declare, on camera before it's shut off, why you're doing it, and if you can't satisfy an inquiry that the shut-off was done properly and turned back on immediately afterwards, you should be severely reprimanded and on a second offense, fired summarily.

Either of those avenues would work.

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

The bathroom is always the first one that comes to mind, as ever (and noted a couple other places). Especially if it's a public bathroom, as they don't know who else is in there (unless they are attending the bathroom as a call to remove someone, of course).

When meeting with a CI

When meeting with an anonymous tip giver (or one who wishes to remain anonymous)

When a person isn't fully clothed (for whatever reason) should they be videoed?

Victim interviews are also a tricky area. Some could argue that that is a very good time for a camera (I'm on the fence, personally) but what if the victim refuses?

Can someone interacting with the police refuse to do so if they don't want to be recorded? Especially in their own house, for instance? Or on private property?

One concern folks don't think about (that I get a lot, as a 911 operator) is how good is the mic on the camera? How much can it 'catch' in how wide an area around the officer and is that actionable? Especially if the folks talking don't know they are being recorded.

Should it be on when dealing with a child sexual assault victim?

Most of the known issues around 24/7 cameras stem around the thorny issue of privacy. There is a lot of back and forth legal wrangling between body cameras and FOIP and the collection of private data (such as the inside of ones home) to begin with.

Can the videos be FOIP requested? Imagine one domestic partner being able to foip the body cam footage of the police's on-scene interview with their partner, so they know exactly what was said.

Those are the situations I can think of, off the top of my head.

And I've heard the "body cam's should be live-streamed' argument before, which just literally made me laugh out loud. If shows like "Live PD", "Border Security" and "COPS" can get into privacy related lawsuits/issues, a live-stream would be a gongshow of trouble.

To the best of my knowledge (and again, I don't know CPS exact policy or how it's enacted here) the body cam is allowed to be off if you are not responding to a call for service. There seems to be some flexibility about driving there, but I'm given to understand that before you interact with the person(s) involved in the call, the camera is supposed to be on. Again though, not an officer, and don't know the exact policy or any of the nuance around it.

Hospitals are also a big one.

Police tactics are another.

Private conversations while not engaging with the public is another.

A couple of points about bodycams:
- The vast majority (if not all) of frontline members have bodycams.
- Any and all interactions with the public are to be recorded.
- All vides are automatically uploaded to a cloud and cannot be altered.
- Access to the videos is strictly controlled. Only the member who owns the bodycam and officers investigating complaints can review video (permission can be given to others by the owner).
- video is only reviewed if a complaint is received.
- bodycams have a limited field of view and must be treated as such.
- bodycams running 24/7 are impractical for reasons already touched upon. However, the massive amount of storage needed would make it financially impossible (defund though right?).

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Camera conversation aside, the one thing I don't understand about Zulu's position is that, knowing misconduct will happen and that we shouldn't accept it but understand that it will, we should still accept policing as it currently is today and should avoid "burning it down" because there's no better way to do it.

Maybe I'm misrepresenting the position, so if so, I'm sorry, but I do not buy for a second that this is the best policing can be, nor do I believe that completely rebuilding it from the bottom up is a worse idea than pouring more money to active slow change over time, or just leaving it the way it is.

No I don’t think you’re misrepresenting my position. I’m all for change and improvements, agencies such as police should always aim to improve. But when I hear language like “burn it down” my first thought is ok, and then what? Like, I hear people trot that line out but offer no plausible alternative. What does burning it down look like to you? What would you do different that is so drastically different from what’s happening now?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

You’re right, there shouldn’t be but there will be. Police are human, they’re fallible (thanks Locke). No one has to like or agree with what happened but you have to accept that it will happen. Teachers will have inappropriate relations with students sometimes, doctors will malpractice, lawyers will get investigated for malfeasance, politicians will be corrupt etc etc etc. This things will never cease but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be outraged when it does happen.

No we don’t,

The humans are fallible argument is only acceptable for decisions that are within the scope of practice that may have not been correct.

Cases like this where there is no discretion should never happen. That is a fundamental failure of the system. These aren’t accidents or bad decisions. They are gross incompetence.

The acceptable number is zero.

The numbers of babies dropped by doctors during delivery is a number that we need to accept will be greater than 0 because that is human error. The number of people getting there head smashed in by police is not.

This Case is fundamentally different Then many mis-use of force cASR’s where you can see a judgement was made by a fallible person. And in those kinds of cases it is reasonable to expect they will occur at a small rate.

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Sure I do. I just think it's a problem that's easily solvable by legislation. No, body cams are not FOIP-able on request, but are obtainable through a court-supervised process. No, body cam footage is not reviewed by third parties or anyone else unless there is an investigation into the officer's conduct or for use in a prosecution.

Obviously that's off the top of my head, but you have to think that it wouldn't be particularly difficult to come up with a regime to deal with this that doesn't allow officers to choose for themselves when they get to shut off the very thing that's there to oversee their conduct in interactions with the public.

The other, easier method is that if you're going to shut off your camera you need to declare, on camera before it's shut off, why you're doing it, and if you can't satisfy an inquiry that the shut-off was done properly and turned back on immediately afterwards, you should be severely reprimanded and on a second offense, fired summarily.

Either of those avenues would work.

To be clear, bodycams are not there to oversee conduct. They are there to collect evidence. I think that's the issue going forward, is that those that are anti-police can't see police in any other light - that they are all dishonest, heavy handed and morally corrupt. Thus, they see bodycams as a way to police the police. Roachmen is a great example of that. He's a self admitted police hater and likes to trot out his "Kaminski Argument" in every anti-police thread. Do we really want a guy like that setting the standard for what police can and can't do?

I, on the other hand, have had significantly different experiences with police. I thus trust them that they turn on their cameras to collect evidence when they are dealing with the public as policy dictates. Maybe they have eroded some of that trust or maybe it's just become fashionable to hate the police.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

They should be both - that's the point. One of their purposes should be to oversee police conduct. They're the only easily available tool to do that objectively.

I've had mostly good experiences with the police, FWIW. Especially CPS.

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

They should be both - that's the point. One of their purposes should be to oversee police conduct. They're the only easily available tool to do that objectively.

I've had mostly good experiences with the police, FWIW. Especially CPS.

The irony in all this, is that bodycams have actually done more good for the police. Offenders tend to plead out more and acts of misconduct, at least investigations, tend to go down as those with complaints find out there is bodycam footage and rarely follow through with those complaints.

Maybe it means that in general, police are actually doing a good job?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

No I don’t think you’re misrepresenting my position. I’m all for change and improvements, agencies such as police should always aim to improve. But when I hear language like “burn it down” my first thought is ok, and then what? Like, I hear people trot that line out but offer no plausible alternative. What does burning it down look like to you? What would you do different that is so drastically different from what’s happening now?

I think the biggest thing is reinvesting a large portion of the budget and putting it towards social services (geared around mental health, addiction) and things that prevent crime in communities, like education. Changing the way police are perceived would also be a big part of that, which I think is more effectively done by essentially "starting over." Removing the militaristic connotations of police, including arming less of them with lethal weapons, significant retraining so that "this person wont remove their scarf so I'm going to put them on the ground" isn't even remotely a thought that crosses any police officer's mind, and even changing the way they look, getting away from dark colourways and aggressive looking vehicles to something that more resembles a healthcare worker. That last part might seem silly, but it's not just about changing the mindset and ensuring the right person responds to the right types of calls, it's about changing the perception of the people police are serving.

And that's another part. Police are here to serve us, and not just those of us who are being protected from crime, but those committing them as well. The officer in that video was meant to serve and protect the person in his custody, not treat them like garbage, and the very fact that there would be confusion there is something that shouldn't exist.

When people say "burn it to the ground," sure, some mean get rid of it entirely. I don't know if that's entirely common, but if it is, I'd agree it's a bad idea. But "burn it down" in the sense that we should do so to rebuild it from the ground up as something better in both mindset, capability, and perception, is something I'm all for.

I agree that most cops are good cops. But there shouldn't be any question. It should not be a professional that attracts mostly good people, and a few rotten ones, because there should be no draw for the rotten ones in the first place. And if there is, it's worth questioning what it is, and how we remove it entirely.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

I, on the other hand, have had significantly different experiences with police. I thus trust them that they turn on their cameras to collect evidence when they are dealing with the public as policy dictates. Maybe they have eroded some of that trust or maybe it's just become fashionable to hate the police.

As a middle aged white guy I have also had only positive interactions with the police. However, I also realize my experience is not the same for all interactions with all people. Perhaps if the police viewed BWC differently then their attitude would change as well. If they saw them as providing a defence to spurious allegations then they would be more willing to accept their use.

I most definitely don't care about fashion but my attitudes towards the police in general and CPS in specific have been altered dramatically over the last few years.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

The irony in all this, is that bodycams have actually done more good for the police. Offenders tend to plead out more and acts of misconduct, at least investigations, tend to go down as those with complaints find out there is bodycam footage and rarely follow through with those complaints.

Maybe it means that in general, police are actually doing a good job?

Agreed as I stated before I saw this. Also, I don't think anyone here is saying that "in general" the police are not doing a good job. What we are saying is the incidences of them not doing a good job are too high and the consequences when that does happen are too low.