A new old way of restraining rogue cops

November 7, 6:30 AMLA History ExaminerCharles Nichols

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the LA History Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes

In 1938, an American engineer invented a miniature camera that was attached to the junction beneath the barrel of a revolver where it meets the frame of the handgun.  Weighing only six ounces, it took a picture each time the revolver was fired.

A gun emits a bright muzzle flash when fired so the camera was capable of taking pictures when fired at night.  One would have thought that this would have been readily adopted 70 years ago.  From a police officer’s perspective, it provided physical proof that he lawfully discharged his firearm in the line of duty and in the event he missed his target, provided a photograph which could be used for later identification and apprehension.

From a civilian’s perspective, it provides a deterrent against those cops who follow that old adage “shoot first, ask questions later.”

The Los Angeles Police Chief at the time was the original “Crazy Chief” Davis whom I wrote about in an earlier article.  LAPD Chief Davis James Davis was appointed in 1926.  One of his first actions in his new role was to form what he called his “gun squad,” what we refer to today as a “death squad.”  Its purpose was to murder people in Los Angeles who lawfully carried firearms as well as people who were unlawfully selling alcohol (prohibition was still in effect).  He specifically told his officers to not bring in anyone alive, if they did, they would be severely reprimanded.  Police Chief Davis would retire shortly after the invention of this gun camera and retire to a ranch in Montana where he spent the last ten years of his life strangling chickens.  He is held in high esteem by the current LAPD.

Needless to say, no police agency anywhere in the country adopted the use of this camera.  Even today, with modern forensic science able to tell when someone has been shot in the back, the police officers responsible are not prosecuted.  Woodrow Player III, a 22-year-old black man, was shot several times in the back by Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deputies on July 10^th 2009 and died.  He was running away from the police at the time, something which isn’t even a crime in my adopted state of Oregon.  Under the two US Supreme Court decisions governing the use of deadly force by police, this was an unlawful homicide.  California has taken the position that the Supreme Court decisions don’t apply to the police here.  In any event, the Sheriff’s department is conducting an investigation into the shooting.  Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to find fault with one of their own.

Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley certainly isn’t going to go against the police unions, nor is Attorney General Jerry Brown.  In other states, the family of the victim could hire their own prosecutor, arrest and bring to trial the police officers involved in the shooting but the California courts do not allow private criminal prosecutions anymore.  If Jerry Brown or Steve Cooley won’t prosecute for murder (and you know they won’t), the victim’s family and friends are out of luck.  Their only hope is that President Obama would seek prosecution under the Civil Rights Act.  Fat chance that will happen, just look at how quickly he caved when criticized for merely remarking that the Cambridge Massachusetts police “acted stupidly” for arresting a black Harvard professor in his own house for back talking to the police.

I never “drank the cool-aid” when it came to the question of President Obama.  I knew that he came out of the corrupt Chicago political machine and nobody with any honor passes through that.  I’m also old enough to remember the bribes “Madman” McCain took from the banker Charles Keating and McCain’s shameless tactics of demanding political contributions from people who are affected by legislation his committee is in charge of.  Some of you may recall that the late Senator from California, Alan Cranston (D) was also one of the “Keating Five” bribe takers.  Unfortunately, the voters of Arizona choose to re-elect McCain time and time again rather than parking his corrupt ass at the curb.  Regardless of who is elected in the 2012 Presidential Election; there will be no prosecutions of police coming forth from the US Justice Department.  The police and public employee unions are just too powerful in the United States.

Although A. Kurnick’s 1938 invention of the handgun camera was never adopted, the concept was resurrected in an historically significant place.

Ask anyone you know how long has it been that only police are allowed to carry guns and you are most likely to get a blank stare.  The question has never even occurred to most people.  After some thought, they might hesitantly answer “always?”

It wasn’t until 1911, when New York enacted the Sullivan Act, that ordinary citizens were prohibited from carrying firearms without a permit.  This, of course, disregards New York’s own Right to Bear Arms clause in their state constitution.  Los Angeles would follow New York’s example in 1926 when LAPD Chief Davis came into power although Davis would go far beyond what New York had implemented.

The whole idea of a police force was anathema to Americans and to the British who imported the idea from the French monarchy in the mid 1750s.  To prevent the creation of a Police State like the one in France, the British prohibited police officers from carrying firearms, which is still generally the case today.  The typical British Police Constable is unarmed and this is where the idea of the “Police cam” was revived.

British civilization is collapsing.  The unarmed Police Constable or “Bobby” as they are colloquially called traditionally relied on the ancient common law precept of “Hue and Cry” when making an arrest.  This means they would ask for the assistance of bystanders to bring a person into custody.  This worked well even after British civilians stopped carrying guns, at least up until the beginning of the social breakdown on the 1960s.

These last two decades the British bobby has increasingly had to rely on physical force to apprehend suspects without the assistance of bystanders.  With no fear of being shot by the police, the typical response is to fight with the police officer and raise allegations of police brutality after the arrest.

Early in this decade, a British Police Constable took a home video camera and mounted it to his police helmet.  He now had a video record of his arrests and no longer feared prosecution.  England still allows private criminal prosecutions of the kind I mentioned earlier.  Unfortunately, with the breakdown of society there, the British government has, in effect eliminated that avenue of justice for all but minor offenses. 

In 2005, an armed police anti-terrorist squad mistook a white Brazilian engineer for a Black Islamic terrorist and shot him dead at a subway station.  The British government took over the prosecution from the Brazilian’s family under the guise of a public hygiene act (Health and Safety) and declined to prosecute.  To add insult to injury, one of the senior police officers involved in the armed murder of the Brazilian engineer was promoted a year later.

That notwithstanding, miniature cameras have gotten smaller and cheaper.  The actual photo element of my camcorder, which cost about as much as a pizza with all the works, is smaller than a dime.  The current British police cam has been concealed beneath the badge on their helmet since 2003.

I wrote several American newspapers at the time, referencing the BBC news articles on the subject, suggesting that this would make for an interesting news piece as to why didn’t their local police departments adopt the British helmet cam?  It would just as easily fit concealed beneath the badge American police wear on their chest as easily as it does beneath the badge on the British helmet.  Nothing came of my suggestion until a few days ago, when I read an article in the Mercury News revealing that the San Jose Police department has adopted ear mounted video cameras to record arrests.

The camera is capable of recording both audio and video for ten and a half hours which is more than ample for the typical six hour deployment of a police officer (the rest of their shift is committed to “paper work.”  Ask to go out on a “ride along” with your local police if in doubt).

Regrettably, the police officer can turn the device off when they please, and the San Jose Mayor said that it will be at the government’s discretion as to whether or not they will release any of the videos.  Police officers, as agents of the state, have no right to privacy so the Mayor’s given reason is to protect the privacy of “the person in the incident and folks on the scene.”  It is also, a one year trial period limited to 72 patrol officers.

Given that the police helmet cam has been used for nearly a decade now in Britain, it begs the question “Why aren’t American police required to wear them?”  And they certainly should not have the option of turning them off.  We have the technology, and it certainly doesn’t cost very much.  We can have a visual and audio record of every arrest from first encounter to arrangement.  This would eliminate unjustifiable claims of police brutality and coercion as there would be an audio and video record of the accused for every minute he was in custody.  No more rubber hose confessions.

It would certainly deter the rogue police officers who are employed in far too great a number in American police departments.  Although it certainly would not eliminate them.  One need look no further than the May 2009 “distraction blow” delivered by an El Monte police officer which was captured on video.  The car chase suspect had attempted to flee on foot.  Realizing that he was trapped he lay face down on the ground in a spread eagle position (his arms and legs extended) and surrendered.  The El Monte police officer ran up to him and kicked him in the head as he lay on the ground.

Under identical circumstances, if you or I had done this while making a citizens arrest, we would be arrested and charged with attempted murder.  Once again, my adopted state of Oregon explicitly prohibits the use of force when someone has surrendered.  The law applies equally to police and civilians.  Police in Oregon, actually have less legal authority in the use of force than do civilians because unlike California, Oregon recognizes the US Supreme Court opinions restricting the use of deadly force by police (because police are agents of the state and the rest of us aren’t).

The adoption of police cams is a great step forward to weeding out rogue cops but Californians are going to have to step forward and demand the same rights as their fellow American citizens in other states.  The citizens of California must demand that they be allowed to privately prosecute criminal cases against the police.  Californian’s had this right until the California government took it away from them in the twentieth century.  Now, at the beginning of the 21^st century, it is time we took that right back.

Until then, you might want to send an email to your local main stream press reporter, suggesting that this would make for an interesting news piece as to why haven’t their local police departments adopted the San Jose ear-mounted video cameras?