Police body camera show cop plant drugs before arrest.

It take a lot to build a good police department, with good trust to it and very little to destroy it.

This simply cannot be an isolated incident as the three Cops involved here would have most certainly acted similarly when interacting with everyone else on that force, and those other Cops would be doing the same in their own interactions, and this would be spread across the many departments where all these Cops have been. I don't know where this cancer started, only that it has metastasized to where no parts are now left unaffected and the only chance for an easy cure long gone :( And I'm not the only one seeing this.
I hope if these cop (and the rest of the gang), if found guilty by the court, there will receive the maximum punishment.
That should be an indication to other, it will not be taken lightly if your intentional breaking the law in the way to harm people.

Though others might try to lead you to believe otherwise, this saddens me for a number of reasons. It would be my guess that among the cases which will be dropped now there are many criminals who will now walk away free and Baltimore will be paying for numerous false arrest claims when that money could certainly be well used elsewhere.
Total agree.
 
Though others might try to lead you to believe otherwise, this saddens me for a number of reasons. It would be my guess that among the cases which will be dropped now there are many criminals who will now walk away free and Baltimore will be paying for numerous false arrest claims when that money could certainly be well used elsewhere. This is exactly what happens when the Police do not hold their own kind to the same or higher standards than they apply to the citizens. Nobody benefits from this except the people who suffered from a wrongful arrest, and for those people I am elated having suffered similar my own self.

This also shows that the problem is systemic, for if the practice is happening in a department this large it is bound to be happening elsewhere too as Cops move from one place to another in furtherance of their careers, same as everyone else does. This simply cannot be an isolated incident as the three Cops involved here would have most certainly acted similarly when interacting with everyone else on that force, and those other Cops would be doing the same in their own interactions, and this would be spread across the many departments where all these Cops have been. I don't know where this cancer started, only that it has metastasized to where no parts are now left unaffected and the only chance for an easy cure long gone :( And I'm not the only one seeing this.

I have been silent in this thread till now because Daleg simply wants to bash those like me who disagree with him, and in the best interests of everyone here on DCT I felt it better that I simply step back instead of continuing the arguments. My points are now proven and I feel that I am vindicated so once again I shall step back and allow everyone some peace here :cool:

Phil
Now when you and others here me complaining about Frederick Maryland police both county and state, you will understand just how wide spread and corrupt in Maryland things really are! Anyone given a citation for anything would have to be out of their minds to NOT demand a jury trial because of the judges and police working as a team, The cop gives you a ticket and the judges take his word in 99.9 percent of cases without jury's and that's just the tip of the iceberg!!!
 
Mayby it will be good idea if 10% camera randomly will be on, even if there is turn off. Maybe go to a 15fps, to save some power.
There could charge the battery when there driving.
 

That doesn't surprise me a lot (switching off cams) since the whole country seems to be in a crisis of people that absolutely don't give a darn, be it cops, motorists, whoever. I know there are "some" good people out there (law enforcement) but how long are the few going to stay that way, day after day this kind of thing is in the news and ultimately nothing gets done about the cause, are so little it is NO deterrent to individuals to change! Hearing that cop say "now I'll have to spend the next 30 days on desk duty", he's a freaking idiot!
I find it rather Neanderthal like that a cop are anyone can shoot and kill someone and then "high five" his fellow officers, and the rest of he general public is supposed to rely on them for protection! Who are they trying to kid, that kind of police action proves they have done this before and gotten away with it, and they will do it again!
 
Mayby it will be good idea if 10% camera randomly will be on, even if there is turn off. Maybe go to a 15fps, to save some power.
There could charge the battery when there driving.
I don't agree, I say make the cameras stay on, and cops be required to use them when on duty! NO exceptions!
 
That doesn't surprise me a lot (switching off cams) since the whole country seems to be in a crisis of people that absolutely don't give a darn, be it cops, motorists, whoever. I know there are "some" good people out there (law enforcement) but how long are the few going to stay that way, day after day this kind of thing is in the news and ultimately nothing gets done about the cause, are so little it is NO deterrent to individuals to change! Hearing that cop say "now I'll have to spend the next 30 days on desk duty", he's a freaking idiot!
I find it rather Neanderthal like that a cop are anyone can shoot and kill someone and then "high five" his fellow officers, and the rest of he general public is supposed to rely on them for protection! Who are they trying to kid, that kind of police action proves they have done this before and gotten away with it, and they will do it again!

There have always been crooked cops, that much we know. Yet we seem to be living in a climate of dramatically increasing corruption and disregard for civil and human rights at every level of government along with a corporate disregard for the welfare of many in the service of greater and greater profit. And we have a President who publicly encourages the police to rough up suspects and pay no heed to their safety or the rules of due process.
 
I saw an odd dashcam in a van once, it had a keyhole on the side. Presumably this stopped the driver from turning it off or at least from deleting /removing footage. I don't see why police cameras couldn't work in a similar way. I think it's a good thing, and will help the police more than suspects.

However, you have to realise there will be consequences to this. The more restrictions you place on the police, the higher the standards you expect from them, the harder it is for them to do their job. Either they will achieve less or it will cost the public more to have effective policing. Or both, which to be honest is what we already see.

If you're happy with that, fine. But don't complain when taxes have to go up, and crime prevention goes down.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
 
I saw an odd dashcam in a van once, it had a keyhole on the side. Presumably this stopped the driver from turning it off or at least from deleting /removing footage. I don't see why police cameras couldn't work in a similar way. I think it's a good thing, and will help the police more than suspects.

However, you have to realise there will be consequences to this. The more restrictions you place on the police, the higher the standards you expect from them, the harder it is for them to do their job. Either they will achieve less or it will cost the public more to have effective policing. Or both, which to be honest is what we already see.

If you're happy with that, fine. But don't complain when taxes have to go up, and crime prevention goes down.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

I like what you said Rajagra but it's more than that. In my area cops used to be seen everyday cruising through the area or having someone pulled over for a moving violation. In other words they were patrolling the area as law enforcement should, it is a known means of controlling things through advertising that we are here, you can see us and it worked since I can even remember.
Now however, it is a rare occasion that I see a state cop in my area and 1 county cop who basically stays in a small town type area that keeps him fairly busy. It is utterly ridiculous, people drive like maniacs, turn signals are a forgotten thing. In general, it's like Tombstone was before Wyatt Earp and his brothers took over as the police force in the old west! Just a complete free for all attitude by the people. Why this new policy by the police, I have not a clue! But from the courts down to the law enforcement on the streets, their whole attitude has changed for the worse. It's not the money, they raise their budget every year and the service just keeps going down!

I and others I know have been wondering if things have changed like this in other areas of the country.
 
Last edited:
hqdefault.jpg


a5734bd9bcda5b93a15816de99e5bcd2--video-camera-police-officer.jpg
 
Complaints dropped by 88%? I'm calling BS on that.

Edit > Ah :
"Those who lodged frivolous or bogus complaints about officers tended to retract them when shown video of the incidents."

So complaints were still made, but retracted before being made official and going on the stats.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Complaints dropped by 88%? I'm calling BS on that.

Edit > Ah :
"Those who lodged frivolous or bogus complaints about officers tended to retract them when shown video of the incidents."

So complaints were still made, but retracted before being made official and going on the stats.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


Journal of Quantitative Criminology:
The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Results

We found that the likelihood of force being used in control conditions (no cameras) were roughly twice those in experimental conditions. Similarly, a pre/post analysis of use-of-force and complaints data also support this result: the number of complaints filed against officers dropped from 0.7 complaints per 1,000 contacts to 0.07 per 1,000 contacts.


Use of body-worn cameras sees complaints against police 'virtually vanish,' study finds

Date:
September 29, 2016

Source: University of Cambridge

  • School of the Humanities and Social Sciences
  • Institute of Criminology
Summary:

The introduction of wearable cameras led to a 93% drop in complaints made against police by the public -- suggesting the cameras result in behavioral changes that 'cool down' potentially volatile encounters, a year-long study of almost 2,000 officers across UK and US forces shows.





 
Last edited:
Uh, Maybe Im missing something, but where is the plant? I didnt see any clear cut shot of the officer planting anything. Its tough to see with the stupid news banners right where the plant is supposedly happening.
Wasn't the plant put in an empty can then officer came back a 2nd time to just discover it? Shows clear on video unless its another case you are referring to
 
Hehe yeah those 2 pics should have been accompanied by a smily, then again pictures like that with any text on them instantly trigger the joke flag in my mind.
Aside for advertising agencies i doubt any sane person would use a photo like that with text on it to make a serious statement.

i doubt it will be a good idea for the cameras to need charging while on the cop, this will just lead to " i forgot to charge it" situations.
I would rather have the cop carry a headunit with a 20.000 mah battery in it, that could be made to go in the gear a cop normally carry.
 
"Surprisingly, the difference between the treatment and control groups once the experiment began was not statistically significant;...

Yet the before/after difference caused by the overall experimental conditions across all forces was enormous. While only around half the officers were wearing cameras at any one time, complaints against police right across all shifts in all participating forces almost disappeared."

Where to begin. That first paragraph I've quoted is huge, yet this fact is dismissed out of hand. Secondly, there's the common mistake of confusing correlation with causality. Thirdly complaints disappeared regardless of whether the officers had cameras or not!!!

I didn't see any actual statistical significance quoted at all. Other than "not statistically significant." Rather surprising for a scientific, controlled trial that they are touting as a success, don't you think?

The phrase "lies, dammed lies and statistics" comes to mind. Statistics are good, the misuse and misinterpretation of statistics is where it all goes wrong. That and plain, deliberate distortion to serve an agenda.

Clearly something else went on here. Change of policy. Change of what figures are recorded. Or just a good old fashioned kick up the butt telling them they had to follow procedure and would be monitored closely by management.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
 
"Surprisingly, the difference between the treatment and control groups once the experiment began was not statistically significant;...

Yet the before/after difference caused by the overall experimental conditions across all forces was enormous. While only around half the officers were wearing cameras at any one time, complaints against police right across all shifts in all participating forces almost disappeared."

Where to begin. That first paragraph I've quoted is huge, yet this fact is dismissed out of hand. Secondly, there's the common mistake of confusing correlation with causality. Thirdly complaints disappeared regardless of whether the officers had cameras or not!!!

I didn't see any actual statistical significance quoted at all. Other than "not statistically significant." Rather surprising for a scientific, controlled trial that they are touting as a success, don't you think?

The phrase "lies, dammed lies and statistics" comes to mind. Statistics are good, the misuse and misinterpretation of statistics is where it all goes wrong. That and plain, deliberate distortion to serve an agenda.

Clearly something else went on here. Change of policy. Change of what figures are recorded. Or just a good old fashioned kick up the butt telling them they had to follow procedure and would be monitored closely by management.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

I had statistic classes when I went to college night courses, and the first night one thing the professor told us has always stuck in my mind. "Statistics are wonderful tools, just remember you can make them mean about anything you want them to say depending on the wording, just remember this when you read the stats on anything"! I usually remember his saying this every time I see Stats posted by anyone, especially politicians !
 
"Surprisingly, the difference between the treatment and control groups once the experiment began was not statistically significant;...

Yet the before/after difference caused by the overall experimental conditions across all forces was enormous. While only around half the officers were wearing cameras at any one time, complaints against police right across all shifts in all participating forces almost disappeared."

Where to begin. That first paragraph I've quoted is huge, yet this fact is dismissed out of hand. Secondly, there's the common mistake of confusing correlation with causality. Thirdly complaints disappeared regardless of whether the officers had cameras or not!!!

I didn't see any actual statistical significance quoted at all. Other than "not statistically significant." Rather surprising for a scientific, controlled trial that they are touting as a success, don't you think?

The phrase "lies, dammed lies and statistics" comes to mind. Statistics are good, the misuse and misinterpretation of statistics is where it all goes wrong. That and plain, deliberate distortion to serve an agenda.

Clearly something else went on here. Change of policy. Change of what figures are recorded. Or just a good old fashioned kick up the butt telling them they had to follow procedure and would be monitored closely by management.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

How convenient to cherry pick a quote from a lengthy article while ignoring the further discussion, or the conclusions, which in fact specifically addresses your comment regarding the notion that, "something else went on here".

Claiming, "deliberate distortion to serve an agenda" seems more like paranoia than anything else. But then again, speaking of having an agenda, earlier you quote a police chief who stated, "Those who lodged frivolous or bogus complaints about officers tended to retract them when shown video of the incidents.". This is an unsubstantiated opinion, offered up with no data by an individual with a vested interest rather than a disinterested academic entity as in the cited studies.
 
How convenient to cherry pick a quote from a lengthy article while ignoring the further discussion, or the conclusions, which in fact specifically addresses your comment regarding the notion that, "something else went on here".

Claiming, "deliberate distortion to serve an agenda" seems more like paranoia than anything else. But then again, speaking of having an agenda, earlier you quote a police chief who stated, "Those who lodged frivolous or bogus complaints about officers tended to retract them when shown video of the incidents.". This is an unsubstantiated opinion, offered up with no data by an individual with a vested interest rather than a disinterested academic entity as in the cited studies.
How true
 
Back
Top