Reality TV took its next step at the weekend with the inaugural broadcasts in the USA of new show Police POV, featuring video footage from headcams worn by cops on the job. The first episodes of Police POV were broadcast on Sunday night by Time Warner channel truTV (motto: "Not reality. Actuality") which features court telly, …
So will this be ITV5...
then? Just imaging the fun turning on the TV in 2025 and watching those hilarious tazerings and shootings from 2011 on ITV5. Can't wait (to die).
I imagined a completely different show. Ah well, here's hoping for 'Police POV 2'.
Pity they didn't arrest the annoying git bashing a drum all the way through it...
Holey Cheeses that was exciting! NOT.
I hope that wasn't the highlight of the show... Not a sniff of the perp in a single frame. Over-weight cop chasing shadows, whilst being shadowed (highlighted?) by a film crew...
What's that you say? Prime time USA?
How about "citizen" POV
showing innocent photographers being bullied by power-crazed cops.
Because there we would not be any footage?
The problem with citizen cam, is that the camera would have been confiscated.......?!
Depends how sophisticated the citizen is.
Cam + WiFi SD card + MiFi + streaming all this to some file on freenet would make it pretty hard for the coppers to 'confiscate'.
I am so looking forward
to the day some jumped up PC tries to get all Gestapo with a photographer, and try and demand "the film" to be told that it's been streamed live to thousands of viewers (and recorders) ....
How about you showing us a SINGLE example where this has happened?
Check out http://qik.com/info/overview
Doesn't "Night Cops", "Street Wars", "Road Wars" and similar shows on PickTV (formerly Sky3) have cops with cameras on their person already?
The real actuality
Judging from the clip the police<>doughnut relationship is alive and well.
Did anyone else have the tune of Doom E1M1 in their head while watching this without sound?
To avoid the selctive editing issue
perhaps the button should be instant on but with a 1 minute delay to turn off. Any time an officer turns off the camera in the midst of an encounter there should also be a presumption of guilt.
just make it auto-activated whenever any weapon (baton, gun, taser) is drawn or there is a certain level of acceleration detected by the accelerometer (so that there is a record of any 'action').
+ a button to activate it manually.
Most digital eyewitness units buffer several minutes of audio and video along with certain vehicle telemetrics. Recordings can be manually activated during an incident or automatically activated when the officer goes Code 3 (lights and siren). The "pre-incident" buffered data becomes part of the record so that you see what transpired immediately prior to the incident. The data is watermarked and of evidence standard -- any attempt at tampering is clearly visible.
Except losing it ...
UK standard police procedure is to lose any evidence they don't like. A couple of years ago, the unit next to ours was broken into. Our camera caught some details, and I made a copy of the file, and gave the police a CDR. However in the excitement, I accidentally forgot to mention to the copper it was a copy. After a couple of months of inaction, our neighbour chased plod up to be told they had "lost" the CD-R. After I provided a copy, *I* had a visit from a right-royal pissed off PC who threatened to do me for "obstruction" if I didn't hand over all the copies. When I said I couldn't do that, as the file had been sucked into our backups, he got really arsey.
I resisted the temptation, to suggest that his real annoyance was becasuse he couldn't avoid doing any police work now.
@Except losing it ...
Would be interesting if "losing evidence" and "misplacing or not revealing evidence to the defence" became serious crimes and actively prosecuted. Maybe it would be a step towards getting a decent, respected police farce. (Only a small step, but it would mark a change of direction from the present one.)
what's the bet, though
that as long as it's done "in good faith", then no one is to blame ?
Ah but !
in the UK, judges appear to be remarkably tolerant of the police breaking the law to obtain/present evidence. When was the last time you remember a judge barring illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial ?
I'm not a massive Yank-o-phile, but I have to admit, their "fruit of the poison tree" principle does seem to have some sense.
"Fruit of the poison tree" is not so good
Occasionally evidence is recovered which, whilst undeniably true, cannot be used in a court solely due to police/prosecutor mistakes. This is not good.
Also, even with this rule, there is an exclusion for police officers executing an illegally obtained warrant 'in good faith':
... police officers had a warrant to search an apartment on the third floor of an apartment building. Expecting to find a drug dealer, then actually raided the apartment across the hall from the one they intended to raid.
While they realized their mistake, they also found a bag of marijuana on a dresser in the apartment they accidentally raided. The Supreme Court based its decision in part in the inability to deter such actions.
So long as the officers didn't intend to violate the rights of their victims, their findings cannot be precluded from being used as evidence in a criminal trial.
So, in general the rules apply the same across the pond as they do here, except rich people cannot hire really expensive lawyers to attempt to throw out every piece of evidence.
The punchline is how much they want to charge for this "service"
The monthly fees are hugely expensive for the department, and potentially a huge money-spinner for the OEM. One cold probably roll-ones'-own for a tiny fraction of the ongoing monthly "service" charges for what amounts to nothing more than some remote HDD space. Seriously, look up the fees! It's like some sort of IQ test...
Next. Since the Officer's word already takes precedence over the "perp" (no matter what the honest truth), this system can only result in more police officers being hung for abuse. That's a good thing, except for the now doubly-bankrupted department. LOL.
The TV show cops has gotten a some cops in deep trouble. As result some police agencies wont let cops film them.
Wasn't this already done?
Reno 911 anyone?
But will it have a cool reggae theme song!?
Looks like Doom
or Wolfenstein 3D when they go to the head cam and the gun is in front.
Anyone here remember Mike Beebe from UCSB (or Berkeley)
Mike's Madness, circa 1992-93. the one about Mr Floyd Pink.
Also, anyone with a copy of 'And still the Moon'
"Too often, law enforcement is characterized in a negative light by the news media..."
Interesting because he obviously never gave a thought as to why. Oh that's right because in many places only cops can buy his products.
Video as Evidence
It’s probably safe to assume that the cooperating police agencies have ultimate veto power over the footage that gets shown on television.
I would like to know, however, if the police agencies have enough contractual control to demand that any particular footage be promptly destroyed, ensuring that it is never archived or available for future review or even subpoena. Furthermore, would the video be exempt from FOIA because it is the property of — and held by — the production company?
I have wondered for some time about the TV cop shows that seem to be on every bloody cable channel 24x7...
Presumably the TV companies pay the police forces for the rights to film and broadcast this footage? If so, how much and where exactly does that money go?
Also assuming they DO pay for this, is there not a major ethical question about corporations funding the police in this manner? Surely this could potentially cause a significant conflict of interests?
Where does the money go ?
To the Police Doughnu... err, Benevolent Fund, natch.
Paris, cos she know about head *and* cameras
The TV show cops do not pay police dept to films, nor do the police have veto powers over what gets shown.
evidence. let's see it.
good news. so if i notice any officer wearing a camera, then in court i can demand to see all of the footage of the entire encounter, if any at all is presented as evidence. if only partial footage of the entire incident is or can be provided, then how can any of it be considered a true full version of events? what is conveniently left out can prove or disprove things, so any missing footage invalidates the rest. my untrained opinion.