There has been a lot of negative publicity to the way that police officers have reacted to being recorded by the public while performing their duties. There are numerous accounts of officers arresting, detaining even assaulting citizens who have attempted to video record them on the job. Rialto, California however, takes a different view on the subject. Beginning in February 2012 Rialto began placing cameras on their officers (in their sunglasses). The results have been amazing. In the first year of use the number of complaints against officers fell by 88% and use of force on the officer's part dropped 60%. There are certainly other issues at play, cost being a big one, but are you in favor of this practice becoming the norm? Below is a link to the article with the data:

 

In California, A Champion For Police Cameras

This has been discussed before and Guru or one of the other officers on here posted that the worst part about there job is being seconded guessed. I think what they are talking about is the amount of Monday Morning Quarterbacking that takes place watching in super slow mo sitting in front of a computer screen days or weeks after the incident took place. But I'm sure they can explain it better.

 

I definitely see the benefit to the cameras as I think the first thing that comes out of it is that a lot of bogus claims made by those being arrested are able to be dismissed before they really get started with video proof. Also if an officer does cross the line there is proof and that person can be reprimanded as necessary.

I wonder if one negative will be much few confessions/admissions once all the perps are told by their lawyers to shut their piehole because the pigs all have cameras in their glasses.

The question is should cops have to tell somebody if they are being recorded. That would be my only question. I feel it's only fair if citizens are recording cops then cops should do the same to protect themselves.

 

There would have to be strict guidelines and reprucssions for cameras that mysteriously go off line.

 

But on face value I don't have a problem except for the few points I mentioned.

Dash cams are sufficient IMO. No need for this mess.

The question is should cops have to tell somebody if they are being recorded. That would be my only question. I feel it's only fair if citizens are recording cops then cops should do the same to protect themselves.

 

There would have to be strict guidelines and reprucssions for cameras that mysteriously go off line.

 

But on face value I don't have a problem except for the few points I mentioned.

 

With Dash Cams and all of the POV video that we see on TV almost daily I think most people realize they are being recorded someway if they are in contact with the police.

This has been discussed before and Guru or one of the other officers on here posted that the worst part about there job is being seconded guessed. I think what they are talking about is the amount of Monday Morning Quarterbacking that takes place watching in super slow mo sitting in front of a computer screen days or weeks after the incident took place. But I'm sure they can explain it better.

 

I definitely see the benefit to the cameras as I think the first thing that comes out of it is that a lot of bogus claims made by those being arrested are able to be dismissed before they really get started with video proof. Also if an officer does cross the line there is proof and that person can be reprimanded as necessary.

I can also tell you that one of the worst parts of the job of being a 911 dispatcher is having everything recorded. It also serves as for police to serve to protect you, but at times it also is a negative as you can imagine.

Definitely in favor of it.

I have a question for everyone. Would you be in favor of security cameras all over the city like in England where there are ten's of thousands of cameras throughout the country.

I have a question for everyone. Would you be in favor of security cameras all over the city like in England where there are ten's of thousands of cameras throughout the country.

 

While knowing big brother is always watching creeps me out . As long as it doesn't record private property I don't think I'd have a problem. But I think I have to think this over more before I say 100%.

While knowing big brother is always watching creeps me out . As long as it doesn't record private property I don't think I'd have a problem. But I think I have to think this over more before I say 100%.

I think that if it records the public streets private businesses and some homes would show up on the video, wouldn't be helpful if all it showed was a gray patch of sidewalk and not the building it was against.

I can also tell you that one of the worst parts of the job of being a 911 dispatcher is having everything recorded. It also serves as for police to serve to protect you, but at times it also is a negative as you can imagine.

 

What are some of the negatives of having a 911 call recorded? I've never even considered them, honestly.

I think that if it records the public streets private businesses and some homes would show up on the video, wouldn't be helpful if all it showed was a gray patch of sidewalk and not the building it was against.

 

As long as it doesn't mess with the 4th ammendment I'm open for discussion.

What are some of the negatives of having a 911 call recorded? I've never even considered them, honestly.

 

Right off of the top of my head I'd guess they deal with a ton of idiots and can sometimes loose their cool on the phone with them. My son works at the Sheriffs Office currently and he has repeat callers that drive him nuts.

Dash cams are sufficient IMO. No need for this mess.

 

Respectfully disagree. In law school and hear about too many cases where someone "consented off video" or the dash cam mysteriously didn't pick something up that's pivotal in the case.

 

It's really amazing how often there's great video of most things except the defendant giving clear unequivocal consent that they're going to waive one of their rights.