Video evidence - Pros and cons

[rastuscat]

It's been bandied around a bit on various posts, it's time I put a different view forward.

In 2007 we set up a group called the Intersection Safety Team. It was set up to deal with the intersection crashes in Christchurch, as far as could be done. I had 10 staff, including the 3 full time bike riders, plus various others.

We'd identify a set of traffic lights where crashes had become too frequent, and stake them out. They were run as spot'n'stop operations, where I would be in jeans and t-shirts, and would detect an offence. I'd radio the troops, and they would stop the driver further down the road, and write the ticket.

We originally set up by videoing each set of lights, but the constraints became really obvious really quickly. I can stand there and look for seatbelt offences, cellphones, shit boxes etc, all the camera does is what it's pointed at. After a while we just gave up on using the cameras (digital video tapes, old school), just because they were only catching a very small percentage of our offences, and weren't worth the trouble of setting them up, and storing all the data.

Regarding offences where we didn't stop the vehicle but the offence was caught on tape, those offences generate around 8 hours of administration from 1 hour of filming, so aren't terribly time effective either. Those are Section 118 offences.

There's a danger that when cameras become more common, the courts will start to expect footage. I see, say, Skoober Steve riding down the road with no helmet on. It's his head, his risk blah blah blah. If I just turn up in court and the courts expect a video, and I don't have it, would that mean he didn't do it? Any cop turning up without a video would be seen as a risky conviction. Whether the person accused did it or not.

There truly is a perception that's it's easy to video the offences we see, when in fact it's a very dynamic environment in which we operate, and as yet, I can't see a way to video every angle of everything I need to prove a case.

Re the balance of evidence, the courts often consider that the officer has little motivation to distort the truth, whereas the person accused often has a significant motivation to do so. That tends to swing the courts favout in the direction of the prosecution. I've also been in court and given evidence as to what I have seen, and had the JPs dismiss charges that I know bloody well are correct. And the smirking accused who gloats his way out of court, having escaped the charge when he knows damn well he did it, doesn't help.

Just some thoughts. I reckon cameras will come, but I don't think they are there yet.

[Akzle]

ftp. that is all.

[oldiebutagoody]

Two opposing schools of philosophical thought come to mind when I consider Policing: (coming from a Police family, but being a confirmed biker)

A) Its not illegal if you don't get caught.

or..........

B) Everyone is guilty of something, we just have not caught them yet.


Both are patently inappropriate, and very commonly held opinions in the two respective camps of drivers and enforcement.

The moment you abandon the personalised/community based approach to Policing/enforcement, you lose the support and co-operation of the general public, who feel set up and spied upon. Unfortunately I agree video technology will be in place all too soon. Maybe I am still living in a friendlier world where Police would give directions, give school talks, kick a local teenagers butt and tell em not to do it again while being watched.

Not anti police at all. I am anti Police-state. My Father chatted to me about the progress to Police state, and predicted it was heading this way back in 1977 when he had to institute "shadow patrols" of local bikie gangs riding through his police district.

[Scuba_Steve]

Video should accompany a cop not be instead of I don't expect or want a stationary camera setup.
If some form of evidence can't be provided then why do you think it acceptable to charge someone??? especially for frivolous legislation like traffic.
Cameras nowadays are small, light, detailed, have wide view angle (120-170) & can easily be head or chest mounted. The UK & LA has started using them among others & as mentioned in other thread LA's seen an 80% drop in cop complaints since using them.

Lets pretend the legal system actually obeyed it's own rules for a moment... Would you find it acceptable if I got them to steal money from you [the person not the cop] for something I never proved you guilty of (& probably couldn't) & the only way to possibly (but not likely) avoid this theft is to take time off work (which would probably alone lose you more $$$) to prove you innocence beyond reasonable doubt at your own cost, which even if you could still would be unlikely to help you & still see you lose; seriously would you find this acceptable???

[BMWST?]

Video should accompany a cop not be instead of I don't expect or want a stationary camera setup.
If some form of evidence can't be provided then why do you think it acceptable to charge someone??? especially for frivolous legislation like traffic.
Cameras nowadays are small, light, detailed, have wide view angle (120-170) & can easily be head or chest mounted. The UK & LA has started using them among others & as mentioned in other thread LA's seen an 80% drop in cop complaints since using them.

Lets pretend the legal system actually obeyed it's own rules for a moment... Would you find it acceptable if I got them to steal money from you [the person not the cop] for something I never proved you guilty of (& probably couldn't) & the only way to possibly (but not likely) avoid this theft is to take time off work (which would probably alone lose you more $$$) to prove you innocence beyond reasonable doubt at your own cost, which even if you could still would be unlikely to help you & still see you lose; seriously would you find this acceptable???

one persons word against another is basis for court deliberations.Of course some form of indisputable evidence will always be preferred.If you demand video evidence for every police traffic prosecution will that be the thin end of the wedge,where the only form of evidence accepeted for a burglary will be a cctv video?

[scumdog]

one persons word against another is basis for court deliberations.Of course some form of indisputable evidence will always be preferred.If you demand video evidence for every police traffic prosecution will that be the thin end of the wedge,where the only form of evidence accepeted for a burglary will be a cctv video?

And where would it stop - would all witnesses and defendants be required to produce video 'evidence' too?

[Akzle]

Cameras nowadays are small, light, detailed, have wide view angle (120-170) & can easily be head or chest mounted.

gopro are gay as shit and watching anything filmed on them gives me a headache.

[Akzle]

where the only form of evidence accepeted for a burglary will be a cctv video?

like the police every actually prosecute for that.

police: fucken effective for the last century.

[Scuba_Steve]

one persons word against another is basis for court deliberations.Of course some form of indisputable evidence will always be preferred.If you demand video evidence for every police traffic prosecution will that be the thin end of the wedge,where the only form of evidence accepeted for a burglary will be a cctv video?

For theft (if they can bothered doing something) they will take evidence such as fingerprints, & photos.
It's not too much to ask for something beyond "cause I said so" else why even bother with the radar??? (which you have to question why they don't record what they're aiming at in the 1st place)

[rastuscat]

It's be interesting. Like, when the JPs asked you to provide video of yourself not committing the offence at the time the Popo says you did.

[rastuscat]

Cameras are getting better. One day they might be the answer, just not now.

[pete376403]

Isn't the onus on the prosecution, ie innocent until proven guilty? Except in traffic offenses, where you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent.

[Scuba_Steve]

It's be interesting. Like, when the JPs asked you to provide video of yourself not committing the offence at the time the Popo says you did.

but the onus of proof shouldn't be (& legally isn't) on the defence. If the accuser can't provide evidence exceeding the evidence of defence then an innocent verdict should be passed it's that simple. No other civilian or gang could get away with taking other peoples money via the legal system without providing some sort of evidence of an offence having been committed

[scumdog]

No other civilian or gang could get away with taking other peoples money via the legal system without providing some sort of evidence of an offence having been committed

Eat your heart out!

[rastuscat]

but the onus of proof shouldn't be (& legally isn't) on the defence. If the accuser can't provide evidence exceeding the evidence of defence then an innocent verdict should be passed it's that simple. No other civilian or gang could get away with taking other peoples money via the legal system without providing some sort of evidence of an offence having been committed

Therein lies the key.

Sworn oral testimony is evidence. It's just a fact of law.

Most people who defend themselves just want to make an "I'm innocent" speech, instead of giving sworn testimony. The JPs take account of that, and give more weight to the sworn evidence of the cop.

Of course, most people who do give sworn evidence get made to look silly by any half educated prosecutor, but that's the risk you take.

As I might add, do some cops who are so arrogant they get into the box expecting to just turn up and win.