DC Police Body Cameras Will Be Off For Inauguration Protests

originally posted by: watchitburn
I don't think this is such a big deal. But it's interesting that it's being made into one.

Every inch of D.C. is closely monitored by camera and various other sensors and detectors. Nothing is happening without law enforcement knowing.

You bring up an interesting point. What keeps that footage from being manipulated or secure. Since it is in DC proper, what jurisdiction does it fall in?

a reply to: JinMI
Federal jurisdiction... Just like every other authority in DC..

Planning something sinister - Control where the surveillance is ( or rather use police placement to create a surveillance blind-spot). in order to control the investigation in the aftermath of something going down(probably bad). People say the place is already under surveillance, I bet there are just a couple of places that aren't in view, especially with the added thousands of people. Worst case scenario that is anyway. If I were trump I would roll up in a TANK, or not show at all on the grounds that it's just too damn dangerous. Trust the shadow to do something to stop him! Thats the classic thing about pro-gun and socio-economically deprived places - Secret services can kill anyone without having to provide an explanation, it was just some "random guy with a gun and some hate". No one can trace that #. Of course there really are random killings, but the muddy water gives a great and convenient cover.

I find more than just a bit of irony in all this. The ACLU makes a play to have cameras turned off to protect identities, but what do you bet they'll be the first ones in line, along with the protesters themselves, howling "police brutality" (with no cameras) if something does happen.

The levels of hypocrisy are getting to the deafening stage anymore.

As long as the snipers kill the terrorist throwing Molotov cocktails and such I'm good. The Secret Service can kill the terrorists that get too close to the President.

Any they capture alive should be sent to Gitmo for an extended vacation.

a reply to: infolurker

what's the point of having them if they won't use them? Why should the taxpayer foot the bill?

I thought the reason the police were forced to use body cams was to "protect the civil liberties" of the public.The ACLU seems to be extremely schizophrenic in their thinking.

so, let me see if understand this, every other day of the year the D.C. police can`t be trusted to not violate people`s civil rights so they have to wear cameras, but on inauguration day they can be trusted so they can`t use cameras,but it`s only the D.C. that can be trusted on inauguration day the rest of law enforcement all over the country will still have to use cameras on inauguration day.

If there isn`t a court order requiring them not to use the cameras on inauguration day, I would use them and tell the ACLU to go pound sand.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

my thoughts exactly! and it might encourage the police to be a little heavy handed since they know the cameras are off, The ACLU didn`t think this through very well.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You still didn't give a reason why the police body cams should be off. Who turns the camera on "when the cop is in action"? What if the officer forgets to turn it on? What's the difference if the officer leaves it on or waits to turn it on "when he/ is in action"?

In my opinion anyone that disagrees with a police officer having a body camera on full time during his shift to prevent abuse of power is illogical and irrational. You lefties keep crying about police abuse but now you are advocating the turning off of their camera?

What a pathetic display of cognitive dissonance on behalf of you and your ilk

a reply to: infolurker

What BS , I couldn't think of a better time to turn those camaras on.

Had the Police been fighting to turn them off I'm sure the public and the ACLU would be in uproar that they have something to hide.

This Friday might go down in history for the wrong reasons.
Sad . I hope the people cam up.

a reply to: JinMI

Good question.

I imagine the Capital police supercedes DC Metro. But I wouldn't be surprised if SS has OP Con. Whenever they want it.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You said "The plan is a peaceful political protest".

Says who?

What I've been seeing implies that's not the intention. And look at the year this is all riding in on.

Right. There is no reason for any of us to be naive here. However free speech and the right of of peaceful assembly are not easy rights to defend. The ACLU did the right thing by standing up to the encroachment of the surveillance state in this case if only in principle, for whatever that is worth. Because we both know that it now has us by the neck and I for one have no illusions that Trump will do anything to curtail it.

So I say thanks ACLU for this small gesture even if it lasts for only a few minutes.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You still didn't give a reason why the police body cams should be off. Who turns the camera on "when the cop is in action"? What if the officer forgets to turn it on? What's the difference if the officer leaves it on or waits to turn it on "when he/ is in action"?

In my opinion anyone that disagrees with a police officer having a body camera on full time during his shift to prevent abuse of power is illogical and irrational. You lefties keep crying about police abuse but now you are advocating the turning off of their camera?

What a pathetic display of cognitive dissonance on behalf of you and your ilk

Me and my ilk? This thread is not about me and your stereotypical concepts of who is or who is not my ilk, it is about the right to peaceful assembly. We are not talking here about whether or not this assembly remains peaceful, as I am sure neither of us expects it to, but rather that in principle at least, we need to uphold that right, as along as it is peaceful.

My reason is simple, and one that should be easily understood by all conservatives. The government , big business and their surveillance state are surrounding us more and more every day.Yes, no? I think yes. In this case, the right of a citizen to assemble without undo surveillance by big brother needs be protected, if only in principle and only for a minute.

And you say cognitive dissonance. I say not so, rather that it is paradoxical. We have two seemingly opposed concerns. One is the need to protect citizens from overzealous coppers and two, the right of citizens to assemble without undo surveillance.

And as far as who turns on the cameras, I suppose it will be each individual officer, and I would not be surprised if a commander would give the order for his phalanx. I don't think it really matters as very possibly it will all be moot. But for me,protecting the right of peaceful protest, if only in principle, and only for a moment, needs to be upheld.

originally posted by: PlasticWizard
a reply to: eluryh22

Something is trying to go down... Not that long ago evidently DC police found a small weapons cache in DC Park. This story mentions Russian intelligence saying there's a US deep state plot to assassinate Trump at the inauguration.
www.fox5dc.com...

Link with mention of Russian intelligence saying there was a deep state plot. link

And just today I believe a twitter user hacked Al Sharptons website refusefascism.org and got a ton of stuff on bussing in protesters and a map of weapons caches, tax responses from lawyers.. One of the points marked was DC Park. (@midnightride20): twitter.com...

Still trying to verify everything. Feel free to run with this angle. Probably warrants it's own thread.


New article kind of laying out the "hack". Evidently the server was unsecured. No mention of the map but it worries me that there is still stashes of guns out there.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Blimey. looks like the fascists on the left are preparing for war and are arming up. It would be just terrible if they bit off more than the could chew.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You said "The plan is a peaceful political protest".

Says who?

What I've been seeing implies that's not the intention. And look at the year this is all riding in on.

Right. There is no reason for any of us to be naive here. However free speech and the right of of peaceful assembly are not easy rights to defend. The ACLU did the right thing by standing up to the encroachment of the surveillance state in this case if only in principle, for whatever that is worth. Because we both know that it now has us by the neck and I for one have no illusions that Trump will do anything to curtail it.

So I say thanks ACLU for this small gesture even if it lasts for only a few minutes.

Do stop trying to romanticise the reasoning for this. The ACLU don't want violent protesters to be on camera and if any of them get hurt they can go to work blaming white policemen.
Not hard to work out.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: infolurker

What BS , I couldn't think of a better time to turn those camaras on.

Had the Police been fighting to turn them off I'm sure the public and the ACLU would be in uproar that they have something to hide.

This Friday might go down in history for the wrong reasons.
Sad . I hope the people cam up.

Yes, the word is hopefully going out to people to livestream the violent thugs trying to shut down Washington.

Control over recordings
Perhaps most importantly, policies and technology must be designed to e nsure that police cannot “edit on the fly” — i.e., choose which encounters to record with limitless discretion. If police are free to turn the cameras on and off as they please, the cameras’ role in providing a check and balance against police power will s hrink and they will no longer become a net benefit.

If the cameras do not record continuously, that would place them under officer control, which
would create the danger that they could be manipulated by some officers, undermining their
core purpose of detecting
police misconduct.

Source: ACLU PDF download, page 2

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

my thoughts exactly! and it might encourage the police to be a little heavy handed since they know the cameras are off, The ACLU didn`t think this through very well.

I sincerely hope the police are heavy handed. Given what we know about the violence being organised, there is no room to second guess. As soon as something starts, It should be shut down with all force necessary.

a reply to: UKTruth

Romanticizing? No. Speaking up for principle, yes. You however seem to have considered yourself as judge jury and executioner. Guilty until proven innocent.

It is also evident from your reply how you couch this whole thing. Not as the protection of civil liberties and the fundamental question of constitutional rights but rather in only a racial manner. Did you notice that you said 'blaming white policemen? Here you show your true mindset. You have framed it all in terns of 'white policemen' and hence it goes unspoken that you consider the protesters to be black. You make no mention of all the black officers nor all the white protesters.

As to your other point, you say 'the ACLU don't want violent protesters to be on camera. That is completely bogus as soon as anything turns violent, the police and the ACLU are in agreement that the cameras will come on. It is that simple.

a reply to: infolurker

The ACLU is fighting to ensure that police body cameras are off?

According to this article, it’s “against the law” for body cameras to be on while police are at protests unless the cop is going after someone.

I suppose that the law is meant to protect protesters (in general) from being tracked or intimidated by the government?

Its my understanding that its the police (in general) who have opposed body cameras: Why are Boston cops refusing body cameras?

And that both cops and citizens are more respectful when they know their actions are being recorded: Study shows that with police body cameras 'everyone behaves better'.