Obama to write Executive Order for police body cams

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So, you are for cameras, but... you don't like that Obama is giving them to you? I don't understand the problem with what is being done here. Could you explain it to me in a way that isn't filled with rhetoric? Like, what are your actual problems with what is happening here? You said you are for cameras, so why are you hesitating on Obama being the one to implement them? Is it simply because it is Obama doing the leading on this?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

>police wearing body camera's to record police-public interactions.
>act that allows for US citizens to be spied on/wiretapped/etc. without warrant in violation of the 4th amendment

I don't see the similarity beyond the superficial

also; Obama has signed less executive orders than his predecessors.
blog.constitutioncenter.org...

originally posted by: MinMin
No footage,,,, no charge

That's going to be the best part of this. We now have the ability to have an objective record of subjective actions. We no longer will need to be as reliant on eye witness testimony for things that involve LEO in the field.

I wonder how this is going to impact the occurrence of Stop and Frisk procedures.

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So, you are for cameras, but... you don't like that Obama is giving them to you? I don't understand the problem with what is being done here. Could you explain it to me in a way that isn't filled with rhetoric? Like, what are your actual problems with what is happening here? You said you are for cameras, so why are you hesitating on Obama being the one to implement them? Is it simply because it is Obama doing the leading on this?

I like a lot of things, but that doesnt mean I want it done the wrong way......

Thats just the thing, you have to be careful how you do things, its a slippery slope.......

Do you NOT see the irony between what happened with the Patriot act and whats going on now, and how people are cheering for it?

NO , this is not an EO thing and shouldnt be from the president.....

This needs to be done by the states, on state level....

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

>police wearing body camera's to record police-public interactions.
>act that allows for US citizens to be spied on/wiretapped/etc. without warrant in violation of the 4th amendment

I don't see the similarity beyond the superficial

also; Obama has signed less executive orders than his predecessors.
blog.constitutioncenter.org...

Then i hate to say it but you need to think a little further then just "body camera" for the police.....
Short sightedness has brought us the issues we have in this country already

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So, you are for cameras, but... you don't like that Obama is giving them to you? I don't understand the problem with what is being done here. Could you explain it to me in a way that isn't filled with rhetoric? Like, what are your actual problems with what is happening here? You said you are for cameras, so why are you hesitating on Obama being the one to implement them? Is it simply because it is Obama doing the leading on this?

I like a lot of things, but that doesnt mean I want it done the wrong way......

Thats just the thing, you have to be careful how you do things, its a slippery slope.......

Do you NOT see the irony between what happened with the Patriot act and whats going on now, and how people are cheering for it?

NO , this is not an EO thing and shouldnt be from the president.....

This needs to be done by the states, on state level....

No, I don't see any irony. That is why I am asking you to explain the why of your problem with it. I'm asking for more opinion from you, not just restating what you said, but explaining why you think that way. Is it because you don't understand why people would be against the Patriot Act but in favor of LEOs having cameras?

Why do you feel that this should be done by States? Are you aware of what the EO entails? Are you under the opinion that Obama just stated that all LEOs are to have cameras equipment by a certain date? I'm really struggling to grasp what your problem is here, but I want to.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Im all for body cameras, but not through this avenue....

I'm not.

The Potus should lead by example.

originally posted by: roaland



Local law enforcement departments should decide whether their officers wear these cameras or not, not the federal govt!

I think not..should be from here on in a mandatory deal for everybodys benefit.

I'm a cop and would welcome a body cam.however, the public needs to remember that if I'm wearing it, everywhere I go, everyone I talk to and everything they say will be recorded. I can see that being an issue for some. As far as I'm concerned, wire me up. The general law abiding public might get a kick out of some of the things I see during my day!

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: neo96

But the camera are not for the people they are to spy on police IE agents of the goverment

But that's just it, when was the last time that a law was not misused? Did he also make it legal to maintain your own clandestine surveillance? (and that is important because like with concealed carry, the criminals (in this case police) can not identify who is a threat and who is not thus serving to protect everyone equally).

When his amnesty EO is scrubbed after the next election, how would you like to be among the illegals who came forward?

Do you think that they won't be prosecuted for tax evasion?

originally posted by: LoneGunMan
It wouldn't be hard for the police to have a device plugged into the camera that runs facial recognition.

Problem reaction solution. They needed the public to have to ask for it. Otherwise people would be complaining about the cops
fiming them and never think about facial recognion looking for certain people all the time.

Muhahahahah!

Sorry to say, this is already happening.

originally posted by: bringmecoffee
I'm a cop and would welcome a body cam.however, the public needs to remember that if I'm wearing it, everywhere I go, everyone I talk to and everything they say will be recorded. I can see that being an issue for some. As far as I'm concerned, wire me up. The general law abiding public might get a kick out of some of the things I see during my day!

And the police have to understand that if they walk up to me with a camera, that I am going to look right into the camera and say,

"Am I under arrest, if not am I free to go?"

Now, granted, this is exactly how I speak to police officers now, however, so the only thing that is likely to change is the snide comments and aggressive threats I get back.

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So, you are for cameras, but... you don't like that Obama is giving them to you? I don't understand the problem with what is being done here. Could you explain it to me in a way that isn't filled with rhetoric? Like, what are your actual problems with what is happening here? You said you are for cameras, so why are you hesitating on Obama being the one to implement them? Is it simply because it is Obama doing the leading on this?

Obama isn't giving out anything, this is all funded with tax dollars which are already spent and we don't have.

originally posted by: greencmp
Obama isn't giving out anything, this is all funded with tax dollars which are already spent and we don't have.

This is exactly my point.

I am trying to figure out what his problem is. He seems to be angry because Obama spoke about cameras today, but he doesn't seem to understand exactly why he's mad about it. I was trying to help him.

originally posted by: bringmecoffee
I'm a cop and would welcome a body cam.however, the public needs to remember that if I'm wearing it, everywhere I go, everyone I talk to and everything they say will be recorded. I can see that being an issue for some. As far as I'm concerned, wire me up. The general law abiding public might get a kick out of some of the things I see during my day!

Exactly, and in order for the footage to have a reasonable chance to not be molested it will have to be live streamed to independently maintained repositories.

For reference, one website cost the federal government $1,000,000,000.

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: greencmp
Obama isn't giving out anything, this is all funded with tax dollars which are already spent and we don't have.

This is exactly my point.

I am trying to figure out what his problem is. He seems to be angry because Obama spoke about cameras today, but he doesn't seem to understand exactly why he's mad about it. I was trying to help him.

LoL who said I was angry? you make a lot of assumptions......infact I see nothing in any of those posts that convey any sort of emotion at all.....

I was pretty concise in my reasoning and quite a few other people seemed to understand it.....

Im not sure how much further I can really break it down for you ....thanks for offering to help, but Im quite alright I assure you

GOOD! i heard there has been significant decrease in complaints and police brutality since body cams were implemented in california. it can't hurt can it?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
GOOD! i heard there has been significant decrease in complaints and police brutality since body cams were implemented in california. it can't hurt can it?

No, in a perfect world, no it couldn't hurt.

But, we do not live in a perfect world nor shall we.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need it.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: greencmp
Obama isn't giving out anything, this is all funded with tax dollars which are already spent and we don't have.

This is exactly my point.

I am trying to figure out what his problem is. He seems to be angry because Obama spoke about cameras today, but he doesn't seem to understand exactly why he's mad about it. I was trying to help him.

LoL who said I was angry? you make a lot of assumptions......infact I see nothing in any of those posts that convey any sort of emotion at all.....

I was pretty concise in my reasoning and quite a few other people seemed to understand it.....

Im not sure how much further I can really break it down for you ....thanks for offering to help, but Im quite alright I assure you

I have to make assumptions, as you aren't offering any information, even when pointedly asked for it. You aren't being "concise", you are simply making statements without any substance and then when asked what it is you are having problems with, you say things like...

Do you NOT see the irony between what happened with the Patriot act and whats going on now, and how people are cheering for it?

Nope, I still don't see the irony. Are you ever going to explain what the irony is, or are you simply going to rest on the fact that you got a couple of stars for your post, so it isn't my problem that I can't follow you, because SOMEONE is following you?

a reply to: AgentShillington

I actually stated several times why I have an issue with it coming down as an EO.....

All you have to do is go back through and read the replies, I understand what youre doing, and ive noticed you come after me trying to bait me in , trying to say how angry I am to trigger an emotional response, and try and pull me in another direction to confuse the isue, it wont work....

If you want to try and obfuscate do it with someone else, this isnt my first rodeo.....

Again, im not sure how much more clear I can make it......

Its pretty basic and theres plenty of substance....

Try not to derail the thread would you

Cheers