Police Officers Wearing Video Cameras, For Or Against?

[JokersWild24]

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.

 

Doesn't matter whether or not we're in favor, they are already here in cities too. Cameras, license plate readers, etc.

[JokersWild24]

Some of the biggest issues as things stand now would be recording minors and recording inside private residences. Recording a minor is a big no no.

[Hellbird]

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

Because you get abused big time by people that can have nothing like their job on the line to lose. The dispatchers have to take all the abuse handed out to them and have no recourse what so ever to take and defend themselves. Too many times if the caller gets offended you end up on the news.

 

Ive worked both sides. I was a police officer and I was also a 911 dispatcher. The toughest job stress wise has always been that of a 911 dispatcher and that is because there is never closure.

 

As far as everything being recorded, I believe 90% of the people on here would be amazed at some of the pele the dispatchers have to deal with in the phone. At one time 911 dispatcher was listed as the most stressful job. That is more stress than a neuro surgeon or air traffic controller or police etc. to have to out up with some of the calls and keep your sanity makes you appreciate the job even more once you no longer have to be on the dispatch floor.

[Habib]

I think a start would be to make the filming of a police encounter unequivocally legal.

[Jumper_Dad]

Some of the biggest issues as things stand now would be recording minors and recording inside private residences. Recording a minor is a big no no.

 

Police with POV cameras come in contact with minors all of the time and the encounter is recorded, is it only an issue if it is used in court. There is no way a police officer with POV or Dash Camera could help but record a minor, they pretty much come in contact with minors every shift.

[AverageJoesGym]

I remember this being discussed before but I thought the actual statistics from a place that it was used would make for a good revisit of the subject. With complaints against officers going down by such a large percentage with the cameras in use I would have to think there are a lot of situations where the presence of the cameras are of a benefit to the officers. By the same token I think the decrease in the number of cases where force was used shows that perhaps there were some cases where maybe the officers used more force than what was necessary to resolve a situation, and that certainly benefits the public. I don't think that the officers were using force in that many cases that they didn't need to. I think a lot of the cases occurred when a suspect was confrontational and thought they might get away with it with no other witnesses. Once they know they are on camera I'd say they are more likely to chill out knowing that if the start something that it will be much harder to claim police brutality later. The chief of the department in question certainly seemed happy with the results.

[JokersWild24]

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.

 

I think that the impact wouldn't be very noticeable. 9 out of 10 lawyers would tell 9 out of 10 of their clients, depending on the situation and the sophistication of the parties, to just shut up until their lawyer is there if arrested.

[theguru]

I think that the impact wouldn't be very noticeable. 9 out of 10 lawyers would tell 9 out of 10 of their clients, depending on the situation and the sophistication of the parties, to just shut up until their lawyer is there if arrested.

 

I mean in first and/or street encounters. Eventually everyone will figure out that talking almost never helps them.

[BigVMan23]

Never having been in the police field, I would THINK it could be a positive for police officers and could be a good thing. You agree Guru?

[JokersWild24]

I mean in first and/or street encounters. Eventually everyone will figure out that talking almost never helps them.

 

Gotcha. That makes sense. And you'd be surprised what advice people pay attorneys to give them then completely disregard it.

 

My favorite story is of a guy who gets up in court and taps his lawyer on the shoulder and tries to whisper in his ear while he's cross examining a witness. The judge almost held him in contempt right there.

[theguru]

Never having been in the police field, I would THINK it could be a positive for police officers and could be a good thing. You agree Guru?

 

Like anything else there are pros and cons.

[BirdBrain]

I think this is a direct violation of 4th Amendment. Many of the local police agencies do not even have cameras in their interrogation rooms, so no one even knows what was said or how an interview was conducted….if a case gets sent up, then it becomes the police officer's word on what happened to the grand jury with no recourse by the defendant. Too many agencies have too little control over the field work and individuals are left to their own devices. How many "safety stops" are the reason to dig deeper into the private lives of citizens. Not a fan of overzealous police officers, and there are plenty of them out there….cameras do not necessarily remedy this situation.

[00Rocket28]

I think this is a direct violation of 4th Amendment. Many of the local police agencies do not even have cameras in their interrogation rooms' date=' so no one even knows what was said or how an interview was conducted….if a case gets sent up, then it becomes the police officer's word on what happened to the grand jury with no recourse by the defendant. Too many agencies have too little control over the field work and individuals are left to their own devices. How many "safety stops" are the reason to dig deeper into the private lives of citizens. Not a fan of overzealous police officers, and there are plenty of them out there….cameras do not necessarily remedy this situation.[/quote']

 

Out of curiosity, how do you know the interview rooms don't have cameras? Based on your experience, which agencies fail to have cameras in their interview rooms?

[00Rocket28]

I think this is a direct violation of 4th Amendment. Many of the local police agencies do not even have cameras in their interrogation rooms' date=' so no one even knows what was said or how an interview was conducted….if a case gets sent up, then it becomes the police officer's word on what happened to the grand jury with no recourse by the defendant. Too many agencies have too little control over the field work and individuals are left to their own devices. How many "safety stops" are the reason to dig deeper into the private lives of citizens. Not a fan of overzealous police officers, and there are plenty of them out there….cameras do not necessarily remedy this situation.[/quote']

 

So which are you saying is a "direct violation" of the 4th amendment?

[SportsGuy41017]

So which are you saying is a "direct violation" of the 4th amendment?

I'm still trying to figure this one out too.

 

It's simple! Encounter the law, you have the right to shut up! No one is forcing you to talk, so how is the 4th violated? Hmmm.....