Police Body Cameras
- Thread starter dgtatu01
- Start date
It should be mandatory and for the Police Departments that for whatever reason opposes that should speak volumes.
To play devils advocate for a moment, if every three-toothed Russian can have a dash cam, I think we could figure out a way.
On the flip side, storage and security is probably a ***** to figure out. Pretty sure if I screwed up royally doing my job, my camera would find its way to brokenville.
On the flip side, storage and security is probably a ***** to figure out. Pretty sure if I screwed up royally doing my job, my camera would find its way to brokenville.
This. The cost upfront for the cameras is not an issue. All the costs and regs to manage the data is very difficult.
I too would like to see body cams on all police. Please wave a magic wand so money falls from the sky and we can equip every single policeman with a camera and we can finally get to the bottom on why they shot three times more white people last year than black people. I assume that's what you're getting at?
Doesn't legal robbery through civil forfeiture not enough to pay for them? NYPD got so much forfeited money that it would crash their computers trying to computing it.
http://arstechnica.com/information-...eyve-seized-because-it-would-crash-computers/
Wish I was a cop. I'd be shaking every citizen in the US for every dollar in their wallet in the name of civil forfeiture. Man was I stupid becoming a social worker
Last edited:
Funding is not an issue. If the government can afford to equip thousands of confidential informants with audio/video recording devices for run-of-the-mill controlled drug purchases, they can provide cameras for every officer.
Regardless, it's good for both sides. Instead of duking it out in court when a defendant claims that he was assaulted, wasn't read his rights, etc., we'll have video evidence to stop many of those arguments before they even begin.
Too often, people think of body cameras as unnecessary oversight of law enforcement, but they protect officers just as much as citizens.
Regardless, it's good for both sides. Instead of duking it out in court when a defendant claims that he was assaulted, wasn't read his rights, etc., we'll have video evidence to stop many of those arguments before they even begin.
Too often, people think of body cameras as unnecessary oversight of law enforcement, but they protect officers just as much as citizens.
How much would it suck to go thru life and look and act like her.
That is a her I think.
Depends on how that individual feels on a particular day.
m
Lmao
Too often, people just parrot ******** they think makes them sound smart without thoroughly thinking about the issue for themselves.
The lost obvious, #1 glaring issue is, per usual, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Besides the fact this gives govt more power, it's not financially possible. Do you know we can't hire cops and pay them now? You same people have been crying about training cops not to kill people, or why are cops so dumb....uhhhhhhh. Get a damn clue. Better yet, join the damn academy. They are begging for people. Serve your community with honor.
You'd probabaly prefer not to work for The Man, I'd imagine. Probably prefer not to spend your day babysitting f'ng drug addicts and writing ******** tickets for The Man.
So, naturally, let's give the man more money and control. That's the issue. The gd Man just doesn't have enough resources and tech. Sad.
Jefferson County just dropped the requirement to have a degree to be a police officer in an effort to attract more candidates. You reduce the quality of the candidate pool and more issues will occur.
Police body cams are prohibitively expensive. This one wanted $1.99 a minute to watch his cam and that really adds up.
they should. If you can't afford the camera, then you shouldn't pay for an officer who doesn't have one. JMO
Courts are also to blame. The notion of immunity (qualified/absolute) is a judicial creation. This notion of judicial immunity is repugnant to any semblance of a free society! No one should be "above" the law. No one should be immune from the consequences of their actions---especially when their actions are a violation of the law. We are not a society of Kings. We are a constitutional republic. It is important to remember the Constitution was designed to protect us from Gov't tyranny. Domestic Gov't tyranny. JMO
Courts are also to blame. The notion of immunity (qualified/absolute) is a judicial creation. This notion of judicial immunity is repugnant to any semblance of a free society! No one should be "above" the law. No one should be immune from the consequences of their actions---especially when their actions are a violation of the law. We are not a society of Kings. We are a constitutional republic. It is important to remember the Constitution was designed to protect us from Gov't tyranny. Domestic Gov't tyranny. JMO
I heard we were phasing out cops in place of robots, pain meds, and reality tv.
Can't confirm or deny, but that's what I was told.
Can't confirm or deny, but that's what I was told.
I'm having a hard time deciphering what you're saying here.
I'll just reiterate that I've given this issue a tremendous amount of thought. It affects what I do for a living, so it's something that comes up often.
On that note, I can assure you that the government can more than afford to furnish cameras for every officer nationwide. That's just the truth. Money has nothing to do with why the policy hasn't been implemented across the country. Nothing.
We all know who is responsible for putting up the most resistance. The last part of my previous post was simply an explanation for why law enforcement's blind opposition ignores the fact that body cameras protect them too.
More important, this change is inevitable. The technology is already widely available. Hell, every person posting in this thread has a camera on his or her phone that's dozens of times more advanced than anything provided to the police for this purpose.
Also, it's worth noting that no person, law enforcement officer or otherwise, has a reasonable expectation of privacy when they're in a public place. There's simply no justification for carving out an exception to this rule for police, particularly when this footage is an important resource for law enforcement and citizens alike.
Body cameras should be standard, and they will be. It's just a shame that people have interpreted support for this technology to be some kind of punishment for law enforcement. That kind of thinking only makes sense if you assume that the police currently engage in conduct that would get them in trouble if people knew about it.
Given that law enforcement officers are the only people in our society that have the lawful authority to deprive an individual of his liberty or to use force without repercussions, it's extremely important that we as a society take steps to ensure that police aren't abusing their power or breaking the law themselves by violating the constitutional rights of citizens. Body cameras offer the easiest, most effective method to address those issues.
how about everyone just wear a camera? Because you truly never know who's gonna be the next one to pull the trigger. Except Chicago, you know who's gonna pull the trigger in Chicago.
Nope.
That's just nuts.
Plus, no telling what this does to your psyche. To know that you're not trusted enough, to have to broadcast everything you do because someone is afraid of something. That's fn nuts. Period. But we're kind of there, and we'll only get deeper.
What you want will probably happen, and it won't do a damn bit of good for us the citizens. It will benefit big tech, big corp, etc, until we can finally replace cops with drones, or whatever. Will just create more problems we can throw more money at, gine away more power to our supreme rulers because we's just stoopid hoomans that don't know how to act please come save us big govt.
Oh, and we can't afford education, healthcare, police, etc etc etc. We are eleventy-fifty-twenty-trillion in debt. Just kick it down the road. Who cares.
Again, police are the only people who have lawful authority to take your liberty or your life. Keeping track of what happens in situations where a citizen could be deprived of either isn't just appropriate; it's essential.
On the contrary, they've already done a tremendous amount of good in reducing the number of use of force incidents and citizen complaints against officers. For example:
Rialto PD Body Camera Survey, PoliceOne Online
From the article:
For 12 months, Rialto’s 54 frontline officers all were assigned randomly to wear or not wear TASER HD Axon Flex video/audio cameras attached to their clothing during each of their 12-hr. shifts. On shifts when they wore cameras, “the officers were instructed to have them on during every encounter with members of the public, with the exception of incidents involving sexual assaults of minors and dealing with police informants,” the study team explains.
Nearly 1,000 shifts around the clock were monitored in all, and all participating officers experienced both camera and non-camera working conditions.
Recorded video was automatically uploaded at the end of each tour, and the research team had full access to this “rich” database in what they claim was the world’s first test of the effect of body cams on police-subject interactions.
The results were dramatic.
For three years prior to the experiment, the PD posted roughly 65 use-of-force incidents per year. (UOF was considered “physical force that is greater than basic control or ‘compliance holds’ “and included OC spray, baton strikes, TASER deployment, K9 bites, or firearms.) In the year before the experiment, 24 citizens lodged grievances against officers.
During the experimental period, the UOF rate dropped significantly, to 25 incidents total, a reduction of 58 percent to 64 percent compared to previous years. Only eight of the incidents occurred when officers were wearing body cams. In other words, during the test period the likelihood of force being used was roughly doubled when cameras were not deployed.
Citizen complaints plunged to a total of three (3), a precipitous drop of 88 percent.
...
The research team’s commentary on these findings includes these observations:
• Extensive research shows that people tend to “adhere to social norms and change their conduct” once they’re aware that their behavior is being observed. Under camera scrutiny, they “become more conscious that unacceptable behaviors will be captured on film,” with detection “perceived as certain.” Body-worn cameras (BWCs) convey a “straight-forward, pragmatic message: ‘You are being watched, videotaped, and expected to follow the rules’.”
• This “self-awareness effect” caused by the camera’s “neutral third eye” affects the psyches of officers and suspects alike, prompting suspects to “cool down” aggressive actions and deterring officers “from reacting with excessive or unnecessary force.” Neither party wants to “get caught engaging in socially undesirable behavior that may have costly consequences.”
I truly don't understand this point. In fact, it's the opposite--Giving the average citizen a tool to dispute the word of an unscrupulous law enforcement officer is a significant step in fighting against "big govt."
It's important to remember that the police are perhaps the most visible arm of "big govt." By their very nature, they are responsible for enforcing the edicts of the powers that be. As a result, citizens being able to hold the them accountable is a vital way to push back against "big govt.," not support it.
Let's not conflate issues. We all know that our government is terrible about prioritizing how it spends our money. But if we truly want to be a free society, these are the kind of relatively simple steps we have to take to ensure that everyone's rights are protected.
Did you make the same argument about dash cams? Just curious. Also gtown is absolutely crushing you in this thread.
I don't know how much more stuff they can carry on their person and still be capable of doing their job. Not to mention the one's in question are a very very small number. I've never like the process of punishing everyone for the actions of a few.
Wouldn't it just make a lot more sense to tell them not to shoot unless fired upon, or physically attacked? We always seem to migrate toward the slowest, hardest to implement, and most costly solution.
Wouldn't it just make a lot more sense to tell them not to shoot unless fired upon, or physically attacked? We always seem to migrate toward the slowest, hardest to implement, and most costly solution.
Thanks, I hate making mistakes like that. So much so that I'll edit it and use my mod powers to delete your post. No one else will know it happened. [winking]
As I mentioned, you have not seen how much stuff they carry already? I don't know how they sit in a car much less function. Can you imagine trying to wrestle someone wrapped in so much crap.
The reality of it will be exactly like the dash cams most already have. 90% of the time a officers actions are considered questionable it just so happens that his cars dash cam wasn't working that day. Don't expect bad people to be honest.
You said as an argument against getting the body cams something along the lines of you don't know how much more they can carry. That would imply the body cams would weigh too much or tip them over the edge, correct? Aren't the body cams a couple of ounces?
Yeah, why don't you put on all of the extra crap and then try to move enough to do your job. Volumes and volumes.