Obama looking to fund police body cameras!!

I'm very anti Orwellian society, but I'm very pro this...it offends my libertarian beliefs yet my social justice approves.

Source

I will always play devils advocate concerning how we monitor the populace, so I do see this as a very slippery slope, yet I still approve.

As long as they stream it on the web, should be no problem.

Å99

a reply to: akushla99

As long as they Don't?

a reply to: akushla99

You know equipment like that is hard to maintain and I can see it now "well the camera broke" or "we didn't have money in the budget to fix the broken cameras"...when its in their favor itll have worked flawlessly...if not...

Also sometimes the camera does lie...there is a video where a suspect is shot and one camera view looks like the cop just shot him but if you look at the rear camera view hes drawing a pistol from his back pocket....i mean there is nothing we can do about that...just bad luck for whoever gets screwed over...

a reply to: rockpaperhammock

Yep...a new slew of excuses about equipment to be made up...new divisions of geek police altering video on the fly...

Å99

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: akushla99

As long as they Don't?

DO!

They'd be a bit more careful if they know theyre being watched by millions...

Å99

A Go Pro on every badge I say. (you know what I mean)


There needs to be regulation for them as well to where they are checked to be working before a LEO hits the street and I don't want them to be able to tamper with them otherwise they are worthless.


At some point the tech will be there where they will have the device and it will constantly stream to a cloud server so they will not have personal access to them. I don't want the departments to have access to the cloud either as far as being able to delete or modify. There needs to be a separate entity that will manage that.

I saw on the local news last night the ones they are testing here. They can be turned on and off at the officers discretion, that's BS.
On and streaming at all times, let freedom ring.

originally posted by: raymundoko
I'm very anti Orwellian society, but I'm very pro this...it offends my libertarian beliefs yet my social justice approves.

Source

I will always play devils advocate concerning how we monitor the populace, so I do see this as a very slippery slope, yet I still approve.

I say fund it with Al Sharpton's Check!!!!

a reply to: abe froman

That would be an invasion of privacy. What if the officer was on break or in the bathroom? Use your head. The officer needs to be able to turn the camera off, just like they are allowed to turn off their mics if they happen to be talking financials on a cell phone call with their significant other or some such.

originally posted by: akushla99
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

Yep...a new slew of excuses about equipment to be made up...new divisions of geek police altering video on the fly...

Å99

But Rialto's randomised controlled study has seized attention because it offers scientific – and encouraging – findings: after cameras were introduced in February 2012, public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers' use of force fell by 60%.

"When you know you're being watched you behave a little better. That's just human nature," said Farrar. "As an officer you act a bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better."

Video clips provided by the department showed dramatic chases on foot – you can hear the officer panting – and by car that ended with arrests, and without injury. Complaints often stemmed not from operational issues but "officers' mouths", said the chief. "With a camera they are more conscious of how they speak and how they treat people."

- Guardian article

Seems to be working pretty damned well in some trials so far. How about we take what wins we can get, and continue building improvement from there?

I'd like to add that this is going to be funded by Executive Order.
Obama announces funding for 50,000 police body cameras

In an announcement today, the White House has pledged $263 million in new federal funding for police training and body cameras, set aside by executive order.

Emperor Obama?

a reply to: links234

How does the use of executive order make him an emperor? They executive order exists under the law and nothing in this order conflicts with the constitution. If it does the SCOTUS will overrule.

a reply to: akushla99

Yea, because you have the right to see a rape victim's face right? Or a victim of child abuse? Along with thousands, tens of thousands of other people on the net?

I'm all for body cams, but there does need to be limitations on it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Excellent points. I think some people just don't thoroughly think about legitimate reasons why they may need to turn cameras off.

I think that the cameras will help more than they hurt... For a bit. Albuquerque cops had them when they killed Boyd though. They are not the solution. The solution is far more defiant and will cost many more lives.

This has gone farther than it ever should have and now a price will be paid to restore the peoples control over the state.

If it is even possible. As far as the pseudo-demander-in-chief being responsible for any action, he is part of the problem, and he is a day late and a dollar, or a few trillion, short.

He will never earn my respect with one of his tricks.

Boba

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: akushla99

Yea, because you have the right to see a rape victim's face right? Or a victim of child abuse? Along with thousands, tens of thousands of other people on the net?

I'm all for body cams, but there does need to be limitations on it.

Yes, limitations.
Your first paragraph wasn't really connected to 'why, body cameras'...

The way I understand the timing is in relation to Ferguson, seige situations...situations where things can go particularly pear-shaped very quickly...and populace is dealing with insider testimony against crazed gunman on the loose...

If it at least curbs some of this...some questionable activity could be filtered...Was a suspect belligerent? Was an officer deliberately belligerent? Was proper procedure followed?

Without cameras, all you have is the officers word against a suspected criminal...and an officer wouldn't apprehend a citizen for nothing...would they?

I agree...limited.

Å99

They should pass a law that requires every law enforcement officer to wear a camera. From dog catcher right on up to the POTUS.
If the department can't afford them, then they can't have officers.

a reply to: butcherguy

Who's going to enforce it on them? The next department? What if they don't have cams? Could be comedy gold lol

a reply to: raymundoko I kind of like the idea of camera's on our law enforcement personal. However, they would have to be live streaming. They will also have to be able to have audio. They cannot have the ability to "accidentally" turn them off. Or if they are "broken" that they could not be replaced. The police departments are simply going to have to allow for purchase and maintenance of this equipment in their budgets as they do with the rest of the equipment that is used.
I can see where the camera's could be hindrance, because it is only in a first person point of view. Just like in some video games. The video will only show what the officer sees, not what else is going on around him or her.