Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Fairfax suppervisors divided on body cameras, approve policing changes
Posted by:
Fox News
()
Date: June 22, 2016 11:42AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/fairfax-county-supervisors-to-vote-on-proposed-police-changes/2016/06/21/2fe18fac-372a-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/18/ex-fairfax-officer-adam-torres-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-in-shooting-death-of-john-geer/
Fairfax County supervisors voted Tuesday to approve changes in how police are trained and how they respond to volatile situations, with lawmakers deeply divided over how soon officers in Virginia’s largest jurisdiction should be required to wear body cameras.
In two separate votes, the board agreed to recommendations from a police advisory commission formed last year after the fatal police shooting of unarmed Springfield resident John Geer.
Many of the changes — including requiring police cadets to undergo training in de-escalating hostile situations before learning to fire their weapons — are already underway.
But county supervisors argued over other aspects of how county police use force and share information about investigations with the public.
The commission’s recommendation calls for Police Chief Edwin C. Roessler Jr. to spend 18 months researching privacy concerns surrounding police body cameras — a period that Supervisor John W. Foust (D-Dranesville) deemed too long.
“We’ve spent two and a half years studying this issue,” Foust said, noting that police departments around the country have turned to body cameras as a way to deter officers from using unnecessary force and to protect them against false claims of brutality. Addressing Roessler, Foust said: “How much more time do you need?”
Roessler said his department is ready to start using cameras, but other supervisors said it would be rash to do so before county attorneys work through concerns over how long camera footage should be kept and what should be available to the public.
“The body-worn cameras are more complicated than people realize,” said Sharon Bulova (D-At Large), the board chairman. “How do you block out innocent bystanders who are captured in a film? In a small jurisdiction, that might be easy. But in a large jurisdiction with the volume of data that our police department would be collecting, that is significant.”
D.C. police began testing body cameras in the fall of 2014, and all officers in the city are slated to be wearing them this summer. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) was initially against publicly releasing camera footage, but under pressure from the D.C. Council, she agreed to a compromise measure that made footage recorded in public spaces available to those filing Freedom of Information Act requests.
Footage recorded in private homes, or in which domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking is shown, is exempt from public-records requests. In addition, the subjects of videos can review the recordings at police stations.
The Fairfax supervisors voted on the body-camera issue as part of a package of “use-of-force” recommendations; the package, including the 18-month review period for the use of cameras, was approved unanimously.
In a separate vote, the board backed by 8 to 2 an array of changes intended to demonstrate a new commitment by the county government and police department to sharing information with the public about police-involved incidents.
Among the more-controversial measures is a requirement that the police chief release within 10 days the name of an officer whose use of force leads to someone’s death or critical injury — unless the chief determines that doing so would pose a significant risk.
The county refused for more than a year to share information about Adam D. Torres, the county police officer who shot Geer. Torres, who eventually was fired, has pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and will be sentenced this month.
Supervisors Pat Herrity (R-Springfield) and Kathy L. Smith (D-Sully) voted against releasing officers’ names within 10 days of any incident, arguing that doing so could expose county police or their families to harm, especially if their names are posted online.
“There are a lot of crazy people out there,” said Herrity, listing several recent incidents in which county police officers were threatened with violence.
Supervisor Linda Q. Smyth (D-Providence) argued that the county must share information about a criminal investigation as soon as possible.
Bulova said more transparency might have helped the county avoid the public backlash generated in the Geer case.
“There was so much information that we just should have provided,” Bulova said. “There was really no good reason why we shouldn’t have provided the officer’s name. There was no reason why we shouldn’t have provided some of the other information that we were warned to hold on to.”
Tuesday’s votes left police advocates as well as critics less than satisfied.
Addressing a requirement that officers carry stun guns, Siobhan Chase, secretary of the Fairfax County chapter of the Virginia Police Benevolent Association, said this could increase the burden of the roughly 30 pounds of gear they already must wear.
Cayce Utley, a member of Showing Up for Racial Justice Northern Virginia, called the reforms “toothless.”
Sal Culosi Sr., whose unarmed son Sal Culosi Jr. was killed by a Fairfax County SWAT team in 2006, called the changes “modest” and “incremental” but still a step forward.
Culosi, who was a member of the police advisory commission’s use-of-force committee, said the decision to wait until a situation escalates before deploying a SWAT team “ensures the kind of practices and procedures that killed my son would no longer be used.”
“Some change is better than no change,” Culosi said. “If you try to do too much, you may come away with nothing.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/18/ex-fairfax-officer-adam-torres-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-in-shooting-death-of-john-geer/
Fairfax County supervisors voted Tuesday to approve changes in how police are trained and how they respond to volatile situations, with lawmakers deeply divided over how soon officers in Virginia’s largest jurisdiction should be required to wear body cameras.
In two separate votes, the board agreed to recommendations from a police advisory commission formed last year after the fatal police shooting of unarmed Springfield resident John Geer.
Many of the changes — including requiring police cadets to undergo training in de-escalating hostile situations before learning to fire their weapons — are already underway.
But county supervisors argued over other aspects of how county police use force and share information about investigations with the public.
The commission’s recommendation calls for Police Chief Edwin C. Roessler Jr. to spend 18 months researching privacy concerns surrounding police body cameras — a period that Supervisor John W. Foust (D-Dranesville) deemed too long.
“We’ve spent two and a half years studying this issue,” Foust said, noting that police departments around the country have turned to body cameras as a way to deter officers from using unnecessary force and to protect them against false claims of brutality. Addressing Roessler, Foust said: “How much more time do you need?”
Roessler said his department is ready to start using cameras, but other supervisors said it would be rash to do so before county attorneys work through concerns over how long camera footage should be kept and what should be available to the public.
“The body-worn cameras are more complicated than people realize,” said Sharon Bulova (D-At Large), the board chairman. “How do you block out innocent bystanders who are captured in a film? In a small jurisdiction, that might be easy. But in a large jurisdiction with the volume of data that our police department would be collecting, that is significant.”
D.C. police began testing body cameras in the fall of 2014, and all officers in the city are slated to be wearing them this summer. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) was initially against publicly releasing camera footage, but under pressure from the D.C. Council, she agreed to a compromise measure that made footage recorded in public spaces available to those filing Freedom of Information Act requests.
Footage recorded in private homes, or in which domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking is shown, is exempt from public-records requests. In addition, the subjects of videos can review the recordings at police stations.
The Fairfax supervisors voted on the body-camera issue as part of a package of “use-of-force” recommendations; the package, including the 18-month review period for the use of cameras, was approved unanimously.
In a separate vote, the board backed by 8 to 2 an array of changes intended to demonstrate a new commitment by the county government and police department to sharing information with the public about police-involved incidents.
Among the more-controversial measures is a requirement that the police chief release within 10 days the name of an officer whose use of force leads to someone’s death or critical injury — unless the chief determines that doing so would pose a significant risk.
The county refused for more than a year to share information about Adam D. Torres, the county police officer who shot Geer. Torres, who eventually was fired, has pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and will be sentenced this month.
Supervisors Pat Herrity (R-Springfield) and Kathy L. Smith (D-Sully) voted against releasing officers’ names within 10 days of any incident, arguing that doing so could expose county police or their families to harm, especially if their names are posted online.
“There are a lot of crazy people out there,” said Herrity, listing several recent incidents in which county police officers were threatened with violence.
Supervisor Linda Q. Smyth (D-Providence) argued that the county must share information about a criminal investigation as soon as possible.
Bulova said more transparency might have helped the county avoid the public backlash generated in the Geer case.
“There was so much information that we just should have provided,” Bulova said. “There was really no good reason why we shouldn’t have provided the officer’s name. There was no reason why we shouldn’t have provided some of the other information that we were warned to hold on to.”
Tuesday’s votes left police advocates as well as critics less than satisfied.
Addressing a requirement that officers carry stun guns, Siobhan Chase, secretary of the Fairfax County chapter of the Virginia Police Benevolent Association, said this could increase the burden of the roughly 30 pounds of gear they already must wear.
Cayce Utley, a member of Showing Up for Racial Justice Northern Virginia, called the reforms “toothless.”
Sal Culosi Sr., whose unarmed son Sal Culosi Jr. was killed by a Fairfax County SWAT team in 2006, called the changes “modest” and “incremental” but still a step forward.
Culosi, who was a member of the police advisory commission’s use-of-force committee, said the decision to wait until a situation escalates before deploying a SWAT team “ensures the kind of practices and procedures that killed my son would no longer be used.”
“Some change is better than no change,” Culosi said. “If you try to do too much, you may come away with nothing.”
Re: Fairfax suppervisors divided on body cameras, approve policing changes
Posted by:
John Geer
()
Date: June 24, 2016 08:53AM
Officer that murdered Geer to be sentenced https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/06/24/ex-fairfax-police-officer-who-killed-john-geer-returns-to-court-friday-for-sentencing/?hpid=hp_rhp-moreheds_geer-830am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Re: Fairfax suppervisors divided on body cameras, approve policing changes
Posted by:
LjT9p
()
Date: June 25, 2016 06:27PM
#1 is respecting privacy of the public
the problem is who gets these video feeds and when they are allowed to be consumed by who. and if that who is a proffesional that knows how to keep their mouth shut and agrees to sit in prison if they do not.
the officers are a public position and they deserve privacy when not in action, on the job privacy, also the privacy to make mistakes and correct them, or privacy to make non detrimental mistakes and not be harassed with cameras and overlords. the random car camera was "pretty good idea", far from perfect.
moreso citizens deserve not to be monitored "spied upon" unless a judge has ordered it (singling out persons for legal endangerment is infact illegal and called trolling)
Re: Fairfax suppervisors divided on body cameras, approve policing changes
Posted by:
kVNT4
()
Date: June 25, 2016 06:30PM
for all these reasons it would be a good idea if officers opted to turn on cameras which are under their own control. which they can afford (with voucher ok), and operate themselves when making their report, to be under their personal control.
and if they did not after an incident, it would be co-oberation. that's too bad. but as a system of avoiding trouble while protecting - tis best
the officer of course cannot extort or control the public by stalking persons and release them publically - and should be made to sign a waiver of arrest are they found guilty of doing so with their "personal police report devices"
and if they did not after an incident, it would be co-oberation. that's too bad. but as a system of avoiding trouble while protecting - tis best
the officer of course cannot extort or control the public by stalking persons and release them publically - and should be made to sign a waiver of arrest are they found guilty of doing so with their "personal police report devices"
Re: Fairfax suppervisors divided on body cameras, approve policing changes
Posted by:
FccNd
()
Date: June 25, 2016 06:30PM
i'm %100 against top down control cameras on cops
Re: Fairfax suppervisors divided on body cameras, approve policing changes
Posted by:
GnYNW
()
Date: June 25, 2016 06:39PM
(the move to have "government chosen" police cameras just ends up being a way for china to profit and illegals to funnel money out of the goverment - meanwhile there are families in fx or halifx or where that have come to breed and live by "performing studies for the county" and i dont want them getting another million to study it period.)
Re: Fairfax suppervisors divided on body cameras, approve policing changes
Posted by:
metalhead
()
Date: June 25, 2016 10:46PM
For those who blanketly support the bodycams,Be careful what you wish for. You may see a scenario where ALL police footage is released to the public; so if you're walking down the street and the cops are arresting a drunk and violent suspect, and u are caught on camera behind him, BAM! Now your face will be plastered all over the internet for God knows how long...
This could create a hostile situation for witnesses of crimes who now would fear retribution from alleged criminals who will be able to easily identify them through online videos...
Also, why stop at police body cams? Why aren't we requesting public school teachers be monitored by cameras as well? Why not EmTs, Firefighters, nurses,heck, make ALL county employees wear bodycams?!
After all, if the taxpayers are entitled to every move a police officer makes, they should be entitled to every move our other county employees make....
This could create a hostile situation for witnesses of crimes who now would fear retribution from alleged criminals who will be able to easily identify them through online videos...
Also, why stop at police body cams? Why aren't we requesting public school teachers be monitored by cameras as well? Why not EmTs, Firefighters, nurses,heck, make ALL county employees wear bodycams?!
After all, if the taxpayers are entitled to every move a police officer makes, they should be entitled to every move our other county employees make....
Re: Fairfax suppervisors divided on body cameras, approve policing changes
Posted by:
fgyghui
()
Date: June 27, 2016 03:05AM
Suppervisor? Is that some kind of dinner headwear? You are a fucking moron Foxnews. Pls die soon.
Re: Fairfax suppervisors divided on body cameras, approve policing changes
Posted by:
HmDwU
()
Date: June 27, 2016 09:33AM
HmDwU