May 7, 201511 yr Author Almost every study on their use has resulted in fewer uses of force and less claims of police brutality. You would have to think that means that several of those claims are bogus. Protects the officer and the public.
May 7, 201511 yr The mayor has said that all police officers will have body cameras by the end of the year. That should be a good first step to cutting down on some of the incidents and lawsuits. Outside of financial costs, what's the reason that these aren't mandatory for all cops already?
May 7, 201511 yr Did I read that wrong or is there another person, but article says new husband is a firefighter, the ex-girlfriend was a police officer but he was never married to her. I am so confused. Sorry, worded that wrong. You are correct.
May 7, 201511 yr Outside of financial costs, what's the reason that these aren't mandatory for all cops already? Unions pushing hard against them.
May 7, 201511 yr What part did this officer play in this incident? Is he one charged with murder or for not reporting the incident or something in between? He's the guy who made the initial contact. He's also someone who really appears to have trouble controlling his temper, and he's been suspended for just that reason.
May 7, 201511 yr Why are they against them? Why wouldn't a union want more surveillance on them to review their performance? I think that one is self explanatory. Not to say the good wouldn't outweigh the bad if you placed each on a scale, but a union's job is to protect their own. One bad incident - not even on the level of which people have ingrained in their minds with Baltimore and Ferguson - can spell doom for an officer. Many layers to body cameras.... A lot of difficulties in trying to determine if wearing a body camera is subject to public record's requests. While you sacrifice some liberties being a public employee, employees aren't keen on every step being watched. The cost is a lot more than just equipping an officer with a camera. From an article I read yesterday in Governing magazine: "Police departments have reported that processing video footage is labor-intensive. Chesapeake officers tag videos as evidence and may spend extra time when writing reports to ensure they're in sync with requests for footage, occasionally needing to redact portions of clips. Last year, police responded to more than 1,500 requests from the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office alone, most of which required the production of two or three videos each. The work load was so heavy that the department created a new position of video evidence coordinator to handle all the requests.The video footage means more work for attorneys as well." I am not quoting this to give an opinion, just that there are more layers than simply throwing a camera on everyone and having it be a success. A lot of fear as well those in private residences will be more reluctant to call police if entire proceedings, say in a domestic incident, are recorded. Take a scenario where a cop busts in to a home to stop a husband beating his family. You find folks in their homes (a private sanctuary) at their most vulnerable. Everything goes according to plan and someone requests a copy of the tape for everyone to see and post on YouTube. A State Senate bill in Florida, for example, would prohibit public records requests for residences, schools, or hospitals. From what I have gathered, the benefits of body cameras are overall positive.
May 7, 201511 yr Why wouldn't a union want more surveillance on them to review their performance? I think that one is self explanatory. Not to say the good wouldn't outweigh the bad if you placed each on a scale, but a union's job is to protect their own. One bad incident - not even on the level of which people have ingrained in their minds with Baltimore and Ferguson - can spell doom for an officer. Many layers to body cameras.... A lot of difficulties in trying to determine if wearing a body camera is subject to public record's requests. While you sacrifice some liberties being a public employee, employees aren't keen on every step being watched. The cost is a lot more than just equipping an officer with a camera. From an article I read yesterday in Governing magazine: "Police departments have reported that processing video footage is labor-intensive. Chesapeake officers tag videos as evidence and may spend extra time when writing reports to ensure they're in sync with requests for footage, occasionally needing to redact portions of clips. Last year, police responded to more than 1,500 requests from the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office alone, most of which required the production of two or three videos each. The work load was so heavy that the department created a new position of video evidence coordinator to handle all the requests.The video footage means more work for attorneys as well." I am not quoting this to give an opinion, just that there are more layers than simply throwing a camera on everyone and having it be a success. A lot of fear as well those in private residences will be more reluctant to call police if entire proceedings, say in a domestic incident, are recorded. Take a scenario where a cop busts in to a home to stop a husband beating his family. You find folks in their homes (a private sanctuary) at their most vulnerable. Everything goes according to plan and someone requests a copy of the tape for everyone to see and post on YouTube. A State Senate bill in Florida, for example, would prohibit public records requests for residences, schools, or hospitals. From what I have gathered, the benefits of body cameras are overall positive. Lots groups advocating for body cameras are actually asking they be turned off in situations like the one described. In any event, it's not like that doesn't happen anyway. An officer sold pictures of Rhianna's domestic violence incident with Chris Brown to the tabloids and sued when they tried to fire her.
May 7, 201511 yr Lots groups advocating for body cameras are actually asking they be turned off in situations like the one described. In any event, it's not like that doesn't happen anyway. An officer sold pictures of Rhianna's domestic violence incident with Chris Brown to the tabloids and sued when they tried to fire her. The last thing police need to be thinking about when they're going inside a house to rescue someone (in what could be a very dangerous situation) is turning off a camera...wouldn't you think? If you got them, they should be on for any complaint imo. I get turning them off during paper work, or breaks.
May 7, 201511 yr Why are they against them? One of the biggest issues I've seen is storage. Costs a lot of money to store all of that data. That's harder for some smaller departments to develop a system that's affordable. While for larger departments it can be extremely costly to store all of the data.
May 8, 201511 yr The last thing police need to be thinking about when they're going inside a house to rescue someone (in what could be a very dangerous situation) is turning off a camera...wouldn't you think? If you got them, they should be on for any complaint imo. I get turning them off during paper work, or breaks. To be clear, I agree with that once they are put in the situation. It's one of those things where if that was the rule and it happened because of an honest mistake, it'd probably be one of those things where they just deleted it and it wasn't a big deal. I don't think people would be calling for anything else if it were just a good faith kind of deal.
May 8, 201511 yr To be clear, I agree with that once they are put in the situation. It's one of those things where if that was the rule and it happened because of an honest mistake, it'd probably be one of those things where they just deleted it and it wasn't a big deal. I don't think people would be calling for anything else if it were just a good faith kind of deal. Deleted it? Wouldn't they be destroying evidence then?
May 8, 201511 yr One (or two) HUGE issue to be considered about Body Cameras An officer pulls up to an emergency call and in his/her rush to engage the suspect they fail to turn on the camera...then something goes bad and someone get's shot. Automatic rush of public opinion will be that the officer intentionally didn't turn the camera on because he planned on doing something bad. Officer is focused on the suspect, possible victims, putting car in park, exiting the car quickly, possibly looking for cover, radioing position or situation to dispatch, drawing weapon...and somewhere in there making sure camera is turned on and pointing straight ahead. If camera doesn't get switched on everyone is going to think it is intentional...that's the #1 drawback that I see. Second drawback is Freedom of Information request...Police officer come to your house for a domestic issue and camera is recording. Your inebriated and saying things you wouldn't say in public and your standing there in your underwear cursing. You happen to be the local high school coach or principal and now someone you don't like is requesting the video from the encounter a Freedom of Information Act request. As of now those types of request haven't been 100% ruled on by the courts as far as I know. As a whole I think they are a very good idea, just please don't expect them to be a magic wand that settles all disputes going forward.
May 8, 201511 yr One of the biggest issues I've seen is storage. Costs a lot of money to store all of that data. That's harder for some smaller departments to develop a system that's affordable. While for larger departments it can be extremely costly to store all of the data. I think most use a third party for storage so there isn't a concern that they are deleting or altering video.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.