I don't know how many there are, but this article suggests it's a tad north of 4 or 5.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...by-police-america_us_577da633e4b0c590f7e7fb17
Police Body Cams
- Thread starter qazplm
- Start date
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...by-police-america_us_577da633e4b0c590f7e7fb17
Well, since you don't believe it, that must make it true. What else don't you believe so we can take those topics off the table for discussion? No sense wasting anyone's time.
"I think this whole discussion is unnecessary".
"I support the police, period."
Your opening and final sentences articulate a huge problem in our current culture. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Intelligent human beings can deal in nuance and compromise. One can support the police AND expect them to act professionally and be accountable when their errors cause citizens harm.
Yesterday on social media, I saw a viral video of one female cop expressing embarrassment and dismay over one of the most recent shootings by police (Baton Rouge or St. Paul). To date, that is the first of the "over 900,000" officers I've seen publicly break rank with the blue line and stand up for justice and integrity instead of circling the wagons and covering collective arses.
To support the dignity and safety of men and women of color does not equate to being anti-police. To support police shouldn't mean one has to blindly accept careless or malicious actions that cause civilian fatalities[/QUOTE]
"I support the police, period."
Your opening and final sentences articulate a huge problem in our current culture. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Intelligent human beings can deal in nuance and compromise. One can support the police AND expect them to act professionally and be accountable when their errors cause citizens harm.
Yesterday on social media, I saw a viral video of one female cop expressing embarrassment and dismay over one of the most recent shootings by police (Baton Rouge or St. Paul). To date, that is the first of the "over 900,000" officers I've seen publicly break rank with the blue line and stand up for justice and integrity instead of circling the wagons and covering collective arses.
To support the dignity and safety of men and women of color does not equate to being anti-police. To support police shouldn't mean one has to blindly accept careless or malicious actions that cause civilian fatalities[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Meanwhile, others are of the opinion that any time an officer of the law takes a life, it should be questioned.
Yes, I'm beginning to understand the proper definition of "partisanship" as "a demonstration of beliefs generally held by a certain group that is in opposition to one's own personal beliefs", because if it's something you happen to agree with, it's just "fact".
To me it just means identifying with a group...it's a neutral term in my book. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a "partisan." Like anything, it can be taken to an extreme.
It is questioned.
Every LEO involved in firing their weapon is subject to review in every state, county, city, or town in America.
You can't roll back into station with 10 rounds missing.
Last edited:
Should our soldiers all be wearing cameras? Why or why not? What would be the consequences of them wearing cameras, good or bad? How about our FBI agents? How about CIA operatives? How about FBI directors who are interviewing former secretary of states?
Recording cops = ok.
Recording FBI suspects = its policy. They never do it.
But yes. I am for recording everything. FBI when they interview Hillary. LEO when they make a traffic stop.
I would go as far as to recommend a third party to archive and handle such data. It is going to be a massive amount of data and is going to require mounds of ligislation regarding retention. Else, we wind up with another Hillary scenario where you can delete what you want and get away with it.
Upthread someone mentioned privacy. Indiana legislators are actually wrangling with this exact topic at the moment. Privacy vs. recording.
There needs to be a balance. I certainly wouldn't want my father's dementia as public record when my mother had to call 911 because he became violent for no other reason than he was sick. I don't want dementia patients on youtube because their spouse called 911 during a sundown episode.
It isn't as cut and dry as some think.
Last edited:
These aren't straw men, these are actual men and women. Why not answer the question? I understand that soldiers are typically not dealing with U.S. citizens, but the rest might be. What is the difference between a police officer and a U.S. based FBI or CIA agent? I feel like you are a big fan of the Wizard of Oz, because everything is a straw man to you. Just answer the question.
Police are allowed to use discretion in this case. When video is involved, discretion goes out the window. A police officer would be obliged to follow the letter of the law otherwise being at risk for sexism/racism/ageism/etc charges. Discretion is a good thing, otherwise grandpa gets put on trial for threatening grandma's life, when in reality he doesn't know what he is doing. I would hate being a cop now. I would really hate being a cop knowing that I'm being watched every minute by some civil rights group. "We need better cops" -- good luck getting that when you microanalyze everything. These will be called straw man arguments - well, straw men have rights, too.
.
I understand that, thank you. And rightly so. I would think Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians would want that to be so.
FBI interaction with civilians, yes, it should be videoed, I would imagain they do a substatiial amount of video during investigations we never see. As for your others, I would guess the military videos far more than any of us know, hell look at all the footage you can find of WWII air combat, CIA, whatever...
Your concern I thought was with personal info being available to the public because of body cams and FOIA's. The military doing its job is sometimes ugly, and is taking place against enemies, the CIA is involved in clandestine none sense involving external threats. FBI and law enforcement on the other hand, when dealing with US citizens, must be held to a far higher standard.
Soldiers are dealing with political realities closely related to the ubiquity of media coverage. It's not an apples to apples comparison as the duties of one are not the same as the duties of another. Police see some pretty terrible stuff, but they don't really see war. Our ROE when dealing with foreign noncombatant is quite a bit different than LE dealing with citizens
Either way, at issue is whether police should, and I am in favor of it. I think your arguments, while valid, are surmountable.
I agree with your interpretation, but I think the one Bruce and others on the Internet are using is essentially what I said. Anything they disagree with that is a commonly held belief by Democrats (or whomever) is "partisanship".
I think you may be right. Yikes.
The twist to this discussion is that every LEO I know wants cams. It is anecdotal, I realize. But, I do think it can work in favor of LEO and justice to a greter degree than it could harm. And the harm would simply be taking out the trash.
I firmly believe in accountability. I don't want that accountability to infringe upon the rights of the innocent and those not directly involved with a crime. There should be reasonable cause before investigations are made. To me, police searches with cameras, and even stop light cameras for that matter, are searches without reasonable cause. Think of me as a 70s democrat. Free speech, freedom to associate, etc. I guess today I'm a libertarian.
I see no problem with your concerns, but to me this is evolution. The technology exists and rather than run from it, make use of it ALONG WITH a much needed national discussion on how all of this info available today, on all of us, is to be handled. Instead of fear, let's try and work the system of constitution, legislation, laws, courts... bequeathed to us and properly address the issues like we give a shit instead of hoping the calandra will revert to 1964 when we wake up tomorrow.
Apparently based on this whole thread, race is apparently important when it comes to criminal matters and being treated fairly. I did not say that he couldn't be wrong - I thought it was relevant to the discussion since "every LEO says they are a good idea" and apparently race is important to the discussion per the above.
Basically for matters such as what ecouch mentioned. There is no need to bring family's dirty laundry into the public light if there isn't a crime,
I can understand why police don't want cameras. Basically any organization like that that is used to broad authority and not much scrutiny never wants to acquiesce to more. Ask me how I know.
Sometimes it is the responsibility of the citizenry to demand it, and let the organization figure out how to make it work because they will not do it themselves. Again, ask me how I know.
Just read a WSJ article that cited multiple studies where mandatory full time camera usage reduced both use of force and citizen complaints dramatically in precincts where it was used. Some were in the UK. When camera use was at the officer's discretion, there was no noted effect.
I think there is a good here greater than privacy concerns which, frankly, are probably easily overcome, relatively speaking.
Sometimes it is the responsibility of the citizenry to demand it, and let the organization figure out how to make it work because they will not do it themselves. Again, ask me how I know.
Just read a WSJ article that cited multiple studies where mandatory full time camera usage reduced both use of force and citizen complaints dramatically in precincts where it was used. Some were in the UK. When camera use was at the officer's discretion, there was no noted effect.
I think there is a good here greater than privacy concerns which, frankly, are probably easily overcome, relatively speaking.
Why do you think dirty laundry will be in public view? Law enforcement, I think, already release dashcam video with innocent people blurred out license plates blurred out, names on trucks blurred out... where do you get that if they come to your house, when you are innocent of any crime, that a video of the innermost workings of your house will end up on the webz?
I'm sorry but it seems odd that you don't trust the police to be able to properly handle the extreme possibility of video in your home in a discussion over their proper/improper use of lethal force.
I'm no expert, but I think the answer is that cops are trained in HIPPA requirements as it is. If they have some interaction that would cause HIPPA concerns, the "tape" can then be controlled. As previously mentioned, doctors should not be dealing with police in HIPPA conditions anyway unless absolutely necessary, and I don't think police recording in the halls of a hospital is any more a HIPPA concern than you and I walking about there. Again, Drs should not be dealing with HIPPA info in the open in those cases. While a valid concern, I think it's relatively easily overcome.
In these situations, it's not about a perfect solution. It's about a solution that serves a greater good for which the risk is acceptable or can be reasonably mitigated. There can't be absolutes.
I'm struggling with the fear of these. Is there actually a belief that these videos, from every officer, will be down loaded on CopTube for the world to see? Wouldnt these videos need to be requested, therefore easily controlled? And bodycam or not, if you're doing something illegal and its in view of law enforcement, i.e. they knock on your door and you open it with a mound of heroin on your coffee table that can be seen, you've got a problem, video or not.
Some have complained about non-criminal privacy. You open the door and they are recording the totally legal booze orgy going on in the house... That kind of thing.
My point was after reading the article the discussion was that police had killed 258 black people... was that there are few situations like the two last week. The article did not indicate there were a lot of these. I am not condoning those shootings. There are internal investigations of shootings by police and the vast majority substantiate that the officers were justified. My point is that the media's non stop coverage of the few that do inflames others to violence. I trust the police.
Here is an example that did not get 24/7 news coverage where two black cops shot a white man and killed his 6 year old son. They are now on trial for murder. The police investigation did its job without all of the hyper news coverage.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trials-set-for-deputies-charged-in-louisiana-boys-fatal-shooting/
the cognitive disconnect running throughout that entire post, that you cannot link the second half to the first is, well it's impressive.
or cops stop letting people off the hook because they are being watched. now we get the full brunt of the law everytime for everything because cops dont want to be accused of playing favorites. theres no evidence for cameras making us safer. easier to prosecute, maybe, but its rare that they lose in court. instead lets quit treating symptoms and look at the real issues, like the role of police and their authorization to use force. if cops have to wear one, then so should clinton. she gets way more people killed.
