Police Use Of Force Drops 60% When Officers Required To Wear Video Cameras

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


Interesting, I hope it comes to the UK because it acts as a protection to both the public and the police and is, from what nonsense we have had going on here, even with Cabinet Members, an obvious necessity for fairness.

Here in Bulgaria they recently passed a vote. Cameras that are not stationed are not accepted in Court. This means that if the camera can move, even if it recorded a crime by a policeman ( Like the car cameras in USA), it cant be used.

First of all the police are not real police. They are police only with connections. Our government is corrupt and doesnt know what is doing... They just want police to do what they want and no camera to record it.

P.S. You can say Police are required to NOT wear Video Cameras.

hopenotfeariswhatweneed
well with stats like that it kinda proves the need for all police to wear cameras while on duty....

amazing what a difference it makes when they know they are being watched and will have to answer for their actions

They being the officers and the public they are dealing with, correct?

~Lucidity

hopenotfeariswhatweneed
well with stats like that it kinda proves the need for all police to wear cameras while on duty....

amazing what a difference it makes when they know they are being watched and will have to answer for their actions

They being the officers and the public they are dealing with, correct?

they are public servants and they need to do the job correctly clearly there are needs to have boundaries set so there cannot be abuse of power..

reply to post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed

With all due respect, this is not an answer to my question.

This is great news, in one way.

On the other hand it is even more worse than I thought.

How so anon72.

It should be 100% decrease in the bad activity. Since it isn't, that means there is still a good bit (40%) that may not care if there is a camera or not.....

Look! Look how they got them to lovingly embrace total surveillance! Clever!

reply to post by boncho

The only negative is I assume the personality types that were drawn to the job for the wrong aspects, will probably seek to get into undercover/plain clothes units to maintain their behaviour. Which could end up with some seriously out of control smaller units.

This is why it is so important for a diligent public to film these events if possible, cameras from all angles. The use of under covers will continue for sure. I would like to see an across the board policy created that all serving police have to wear a camera, but I guess there could always be an exception. Still, this is great news and will make a huge difference in police encounters me thinks.

reply to post by Shiloh7


It should be a global policy for all police, as surveillance is becoming an inevitable part of all our lives.

reply to post by anon72

Hopefully in time we will continue to see that number fall, but yea a for now, what up 40%? Get onboard with what is right!

speculativeoptimist
reply to post by Shiloh7

 

It should be a global policy for all police, as surveillance is becoming an inevitable part of all our lives.

You appear to be one of those speculative optimists.

But from a more pessimistic point of view, policemen with cameras that eventually become real-time connected to the internet could be the beginning of a global police state.

reply to post by Skyfloating

You appear to be one of those speculative optimists.

Indeed, if my glass is half empty I get sad so I have to keep on hoping, right? Seeking the light so I do not get swallowed up in misery and doom.

But from a more pessimistic point of view, policemen with cameras that eventually become real-time connected to the internet could be the beginning of a global police state.

Well there is always that I suppose, but I still think this is a step in the right direction, The global police state seems inevitable and if they are gonna film us we should be grateful that for the time being, we are free to film them as well. Hey pessimism has it's place too, I just want productive pessimism. Now if/when the day comes where it becomes illegal for us to film them, we have turned a corner to the wrong direction, but I think here in the states people would fight that and so far, the courts are on our side.

Some of you will believe anything. A small town no one has ever heard of and some of the 70 officers.

So you want to put cameras on 35,000 New York sworn officers?

The FOP would not be able to stop laughing long enough to even comment on this.

reply to post by spooky24

Judge Orders New York City Police to Wear Cameras

Other states too:

California, Oregon, Arizona, Utah, Texas, Kansas, Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio, South Carolina and North Carolina.

spectrum.ieee.org...
Are you saying it will cost too much therefore be improbable or that the cameras won't make a big difference anyway? Or do you think the FOP will reject the idea because he they think it is a bad idea?
thanks

As always taking things out of context to try to make a point with people who know absolutely nothing about law enforcement except to have an axe to grind.

"The cameras ‘should also alleviate some of the mistrust that has developed between the police and the black and Hispanic communities … [and] will be equally helpful to members of the NYPD who are wrongly accused of inappropriate behavior"

The pilot program in one precinct per division is simply to counter the enormous amount of frivolous lawsuits filed against officers in some areas.

"We had a few individuals come into the station to file complaints, and when we showed them the video, they were more than willing to leave.”

The program will be evaluated after a year. None of the footage could ever be used in court and it's up to the officer as to what to video and what not to.

NYC has a stop and frisk policy that is not needed in other parts of the country.