The debate "Should police officers wear a body camera to check on if they commit crimes" was started by
April 13, 2016, 1:31 am.
25 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 4 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PsychDave posted 4 arguments, jamesbond007 posted 1 argument, TZW posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
jamesbond007, PsychDave, TZW, RyanWakefield, Kakwa, bearjew1984, Thomas_Jefferson, mxhsin, Sophie, confident, Anjali, lets_hear_your_argument, Sosocratese, wildcat79, OIA, itsme, SwaggerPoptart, Zuhayr and 7 visitors agree.
historybuff, oceanmaster19, Donald_J_Trump and 1 visitor disagree.
They have tried this before in US i belive and the crime rate actually decreased there
I would say yes. Sometimes officers will respond while on off duty to assist fellow officers. It would have to be the responsibility of the officer to use items issued accordingly.
I'm also sure that officers must sign an SF 312 which is a nondisclosure agreement. Anything that they disclose that is considered PII or Private without authorization of doing such is punishable by USC.
Some officers receive take home cars and uniforms, and respond from their homes, should cameras be the same way?
I would say each station should have them and they get signed in and out as they are leaving the station.
who turns them on/off when the cop goes outside?
For patrolling, I would say cameras should be worn since incidents can arise. For time spent doing paperwork, there should already be surveillance cameras in police stations, so body cameras wouldn't be needed. Basically I think police should have cameras worn whenever they are outside the station and on duty.
They're not in your house watching you look at dirty magazines. it's just like a store camera, they look only when they need to look. No one's going to watch an entire officers duty day with a bowl of popcorn snuggled up on the sofa. You have no privacy in public, that's why it's public property not private.
I know if they have to respond to a house call then they would be on private property, but they should leave their camera on. You never know what could happen, it could go bad on the family or the officers behalf. Instead of guessing what happened you can see first hand.
except that would be a huge increase in government surveillance. they wouldn't be only monitoring police but everyone. and you would need the to be almost everywhere. it is much more efficient and less invasive to have them attached to the police.
as for the costs, you would also be saving a fortune in litigation costs. if you have a video that proves innocence or guilt it will save alot of time and money spent on lawsuits. that would recoup a fair chunk of your start up costs. and it would be saved every year.
I think it would make more sense to just put more CCTVs around. That way you don't get a blurry camera feed if the officer is on the ground in a scuffle, or you can see the entire area around the incident.
Granted it wouldn't be feasible in rural areas so, those officers would need a Go Pro like camera on them.
It would definitely strengthen the Justice System by allowing cases to be solved quicker and more justly.
and would this be left to the DA or the state if there is a question?
Undedicated time is things such as patroling.
I think MrShine is talking about when the police are doing paperwork in their office. that's a waste of camera time and storage.
I agree that the startup costs would be high, and that storage would be needed. I still think it would be worthwhile to at least look into implementing.
As to police doing things in their off hours, at that point they are no different than anyone else. They are just as entitled to privacy when off the clock as anyone. If they cheat of their spouse it is relevant to their marriage, but not really to the police department or the public.
The big problems with the ideas are data storage, and cost. The upstart cost is cool, anything is typically expensive to start, but data storage on individual officers is costly, because the terabytes on terabytes collected would be stored for an unspecified time (cases that can occur from incidents several years prior prompt issues). Also, when the job has instant issues and long hours, the camera cannot be on all through the work, much of the time an officer has in uncommitted and when the camera isn't turned on dirty deeds can be done. Plus anything done during uncommitted time, which doesn't have to be illegal maybe infidelity, blackmail within the force isn't impossible.
The more I have looked into police violence and the accusations thereof the more I think this would be a good idea. If the police are honestly doing their best it will vindicate them. If they are only resorting to violence and lethal force because the situation warrants it, they deserve to be proven right and not be attacked in the media. If they are abusing their power, they deserve to be punished for it. Either way, having impartial evidence of exactly what happened would help ensure a just outcome both for the officers and for the public.