Occupy Corporatism
by Susanne Posel
There is a growing concern by experts that “just because we put cameras on officers, doesn’t mean we’re going to capture everything” that happens during an arrest or confrontation between suspects and law enforcement.
Shaun King, a digital activist, explained : “Wearable police cameras are not the panacea. It’s a form of accountability.”
The body cameras attached to the lapel of the officer’s uniform are pointed at the suspect and not the police officer, voiding the possibility of filming police brutality or inciteful actions that may be happening “off camera”.
With the advent of body cameras being potentially mandated for officers, how the dash-cameras now in place fit into the mix might be an avenue for removing the “impartial” witness now installed to film any altercation with police.
The statistics show that there have not been consistent convictions of police violating citizen’s rights even when the officer is being filmed. In fact, these incidents are rarely prosecuted.
- In 2013, Chicago police officers were not charged with the fatal shooting of an unarmed man even though the incident was filmed
- In 2014, a jury acquitted 2 former police officers who were filmed beating a homeless man to death
- The officers involved in the chokehold death of an unarmed black man have not been charged even though they were filmed and the video went viral on the internet
- Los Angeles police officers were caught disabling their voice recording equipment; antennas on at least 50 squad cars used in low-income areas
- Police departments typically deny requests from the public for video footage of violent incidents caught on body or dashboard cameras
Regardless of this, the White House publicly stated that “[President] Obama will ask Congress for $75 million over three years to subsidize the purchase of up to 50,000 body-worn cameras for local police.”
The president has created a Task Force on Police Practices (TFPP) that will “produce a report by late February with recommendations on how to promote effective crime reduction while building public trust.”
Part of the building of trust is an executive order said to be in preparation “mandate federal agencies review the way they provide US police with heavy equipment like tanks and aircraft.”
Military-grade weapons that made it from the Department of Defense (DoD) to police departments include:
- 92,442 small arms
- 5,235 Humvees
- 617 mine resistant vehicles
- 616 aircraft
- Various financial and indiscriminant “equipment” provided by the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
In order to “help improve trust between communities and their police forces” the Obama administration and various advocates such as New York City Public Advocate Letitia James believe that these lapel-mounted camera devices will be a positive effort to regain public confidence in police departments nationwide.
Unnamed White House officials were quoted as saying the executive order would require agencies keep “better tracking of the equipment that ends up with police, require training for officers, and mandate reviews following ‘significant’ incidents in which the equipment is used.”
However, the anonymous officials claimed “the president wouldn’t tamp down on the flow of equipment from the Pentagon to police departments since the bulk of the gear isn’t military grade.”
James , wrote a letter back in August to New York Police Department (NYPD) Commissioner Bill Bratton and the NY City Council in response to the lack of empathy displayed after the death of Eric Garner due to a chokehold performed by an officer of the NYPD because Garner was resisting arrest.
Since them James has been pushing for the use of cameras on police officers to “increase transparency and accountability while helping departments improve protocol. We estimate that it would cost the city $5 million, $5 million, to equip 15 percent of the police force with body cameras, and that’s far less than the $152 million that we are paying out in judgments.”
In a report published by the Office of the New York Public Advocate (ONYPA), James explained “the value of body-worn cameras can be felt in both ethical and financial terms. Without a doubt, the most important result of NYPD use of body-worn cameras is to ensure transparency and accountability. Upon instituting this policy, New York City would be joining numerous other cities around the country that are aiming to ensure greater transparency and proper police conduct. Additionally, the proposal to use body cameras is likely to save the City significant money: officers will be more inclined to comport themselves in a manner that is less likely to result in lawsuits and false claims will be far easier to debunk.”
However, there is one problem with the use and distribution of body cameras to police officers ONYPA found that make this idea ineffectual: The NYPD “declined to prosecute 28% of all substantiated misconduct cases from January to August of 2013.”
An estimated 1,200 out of 18,000 police departments in the US have purchased body cameras so far.
Robert White, police chief for the Denver Police Department (DPD) said to the press : “We believe the citizens have a right to know what the officers are doing.”
ConspiracyAnalyst.org 