How do you propose the government pays for that?

 

Some departments barely afford uniforms. Some haven't given officers raises in years, not even for cost of living. Who will buy cameras for 700,000 police in the US, AND keep all recorded video stored for every officers 8/10/12 hour shifts? How long must it be stored? Is that going to get expensive?

 

Not to mention, take away the 1033 program and police will already be losing money because they will have to buy things they were once getting for next to nothing.

 

I'm all for cameras btw...I just don't see how all police departments can afford them all the time.

 

Why not use the money that has been given to police departments Bearcats to protect Pumpkin Festivals and the Ohio State football games? One of those Bearcats cost $285,000, a body camera cost about $350 according to this website: VIEVU Store - VIEVU² I'm not trying to be sarcastic but a lot of those grants were given to departments that really don't need that kind of equipment, especially brand new equipment. If they want vehicles like that let them use surplus, not new.

 

The money for one Bearcat could equip 815 officers with body cameras. I read an article that the White House supports it--they've blown enough of our money on things that haven't helped anyone, maybe they'll financially support this. It seems to help both the cops and the public. In every study that I've seen both use of force by officers and complaints against officers go down when cameras are used.

 

Why not use the money that has been given to police departments Bearcats to protect Pumpkin Festivals and the Ohio State football games? One of those Bearcats cost $285,000, a body camera cost about $350 according to this website: VIEVU Store - VIEVU² I'm not trying to be sarcastic but a lot of those grants were given to departments that really don't need that kind of equipment, especially brand new equipment. If they want vehicles like that let them use surplus, not new.

 

The money for one Bearcat could equip 815 officers with body cameras. I read an article that the White House supports it--they've blown enough of our money on things that haven't helped anyone, maybe they'll financially support this. It seems to help both the cops and the public. In every study that I've seen both use of force by officers and complaints against officers go down when cameras are used.

 

Most places are getting the equipment for free or next to nothing. They're not getting money and if they don't use the equipment it goes back to the military. Even if one department can afford it, how can every other department? And you are talking about buying them only. You ignored my other points. Who pays for storing hours upon hours of video? Where's that money come from?

 

Also as much as you might not like to admit it, the bearcats are useful for safety reasons.

 

 

Back on topic...I wonder how many times news stations or websites reported on the original story the firefighter gave vs the time dedicated to showing he's a liar?

Most places are getting the equipment for free or next to nothing. They're not getting money and if they don't use the equipment it goes back to the military. Even if one department can afford it, how can every other department? And you are talking about buying them only. You ignored my other points. Who pays for storing hours upon hours of video? Where's that money come from?

 

Those departments may be getting the equipment for free but the federal government is spending money on it. I'm not talking about the military surplus equipment. A lot of the equipment is not surplus. That money could be used to pay for the cameras.

 

As for the storage, I have no idea how much any of that costs or how long it would need to be stored. That's a question for computer and legal experts. My point is that this is important enough of an issue that it needs to be explored. With the growing tensions between citizens and police in this country body cameras would seem to be every bit, if not more important than, armored vehicles and flash bangs...

 

Those departments may be getting the equipment for free but the federal government is spending money on it. I'm not talking about the military surplus equipment. A lot of the equipment is not surplus. That money could be used to pay for the cameras.

 

As for the storage, I have no idea how much any of that costs or how long it would need to be stored. That's a question for computer and legal experts. My point is that this is important enough of an issue that it needs to be explored. With the growing tensions between citizens and police in this country body cameras would seem to be every bit, if not more important than, armored vehicles and flash bangs...

 

You seem to think, or insinuate that most departments haven't already or aren't exploring cameras right now.

 

And I'm guessing it's expensive to store video that runs constantly during an officers shift for days...months or however long it needs to be stored.

 

I guess it depends on how you look at things. If you were tasked with taking down people who want to kill you, and have access to firearms, body armor and other deadly equipment, would you rather have equipment for your safety or a camera?

 

Btw, the federal government has already spent the money on the items given out to police. It's not money they're spending just for police. Not to mention the only items people want to talk about are guns and armored vehicles...but they also give police cameras, first aid kits, etc.

 

It's not one or the other anyways. Do you know if the department you mentioned spent money on a bearcat has cameras or not?

I never insinuated an such thing. Here's my original quote: And that is why every police department should be equipped with, and be required to use body cameras at all times...

 

Where in there does it say that I think departments aren't exploring cameras. I didn't did I?

 

I also never insinuated that the department spent money on a Bearcat. In fact, I said that the money was GIVEN to the police department so that they could protect their Pumpkin Festival from terrorist attack. I also said that the money used for that could have bought 814 body cameras (at retail). I was talking about the federal government using money for body cameras instead of Bearcats. I don't see how you could have read it any other way. You've taken a simple statement and went places with it that I never went and totally threadjacked this thread. I was simply trying to show that body cameras are a good thing--in this case they certainly protected the officer from a false claim.

I never insinuated an such thing. Here's my original quote: And that is why every police department should be equipped with, and be required to use body cameras at all times...

 

Where in there does it say that I think departments aren't exploring cameras. I didn't did I?

 

I also never insinuated that the department spent money on a Bearcat. In fact, I said that the money was GIVEN to the police department so that they could protect their Pumpkin Festival from terrorist attack. I also said that the money used for that could have bought 814 body cameras (at retail). I was talking about the federal government using money for body cameras instead of Bearcats. I don't see how you could have read it any other way. You've taken a simple statement and went places with it that I never went and totally threadjacked this thread. I was simply trying to show that body cameras are a good thing--in this case they certainly protected the officer from a false claim.

 

 

I never said you said it. I said you insinuated it. It looked that way to me.

 

As for the storage, I have no idea how much any of that costs or how long it would need to be stored. That's a question for computer and legal experts. My point is that this is important enough of an issue that it needs to be explored. With the growing tensions between citizens and police in this country body cameras would seem to be every bit, if not more important than, armored vehicles and flash bangs...

 

I'll move on from the bearcat talk, even though you were the one who brought it into the discussion. I mentioned the topic at hand in one of my posts and you completely ignored it and focused on other parts...but I'm threadjacking?

 

My only point with my original post was to show that it's not as easy as just saying "let's get some cameras for all police and make them wear them all the time". There are some potential problems preventing that.

remove rx medicaid payment for the street drug Suboxone , you know have plenty of cash for police officers . I'll start my own thread on it .

Like I said before, since it will get lost in the other stuff.

 

 

I wonder how many times news stations or websites reported on the original story the firefighter gave vs the time dedicated to showing he's a liar?