Hillary Clinton: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras

I think it far more urgent that Hillary, Bill and Company be harnessed with around the clock video surveillance. Perhaps it would be just to strap one on to all those that serve or aspire to serve the United States of America. The networks that sustain Inequality, in all its nasty forms, would be addressed from the top down, rather than the bottom up which never, ever, reaches anywhere near the top.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: HighFive

She's full of it. All of them are when campaigning. Everything from now on to election is all lies and BS. Believe none it. She wants your vote and will say anything to get it. God forbid she's gets into office, she'll never meet the promises she made. That you can take to the bank.

There need be no more words said when trying to explain politicians reasoning behind ANYTHING that comes out of their mouths from this point into the campaigning, and onwards.

originally posted by: HighFive
www.usatoday.com...

Hillary Clinton has proposed much needed reforms to the criminal justice system:
Body cams for every police dept.
Drug war reform
Ending mass incarceration for non violent crimes
Prison reform
Demilitarization of the police

Easy causes to rally behind right now.

No exaggeration, I am likely to emigrate from the US if she is elected. The chaos will only descend further I feel.

Hillary Clinton has no business suggesting any changes to the criminal justice system or even criticizing law enforcement. She's on the same level as a criminal if not a traitorous women and deserves to be locked up herself.

a reply to: HighFive

"Police Officers should wear Body Cameras"

I imagine that would be rather counter productive toward the Police dispensing their own particular brand of barbarism aka the way they see fit to dispense justice among our populations.

Then again should these cameras ever become mainstream i imagine they will have an off switch and/or uncharged/battery charging issues.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: HighFive
www.usatoday.com...

Hillary Clinton has proposed much needed reforms to the criminal justice system:
Body cams for every police dept.
Drug war reform
Ending mass incarceration for non violent crimes
Prison reform
Demilitarization of the police

Easy causes to rally behind right now.
.

If it were so easy; where is Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker on these issues? Taking the tough on crime approach that every other presidential candidate has taken...

Even Rand Paul who supports these proposals has not been as vocal since entering the republican primary. But he will rely heavily on these popular positions if he is the nominee.

Either way it is significant that two presidential candidates are proposing drug war and prison reform.

a reply to: andy06shake

The bulk of agencies who require camera use where the officers can't control on/off that doesn't support your theory are what then?

a reply to: HighFive
Hillary Clinton should wear a muzzle, but that is just wishful thinking. All politicians should wear a muzzle, they might get more work done.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
OMG

For once I agree with her.

All police should wear body cameras.

If they did Ferguson would never have happened, there would have been video of the incident and the truth would have stopped the riots.

Absolutely, yes, and the recordings must be archived in perpetuity.

That being said:

DYNASTIC PRESIDENCY, NEVER EVER, MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN

John Quincy Adams? The Roosevelts?

I don't think the issue is dynastic presidents as long as the candidate is the right one for the job, it's when you have Bush as the head of the CIA, Bush as a puppet for his father and the possibility of Bush as another puppet for his father.

That sort of thing.

a reply to: HighFive

Someone like Hillary, who has spent her entire career cheating every system of enterprise she comes in contact with is now preaching to the public about ethics and means of accountability?

She would make a good comedian in a morbid and perverted kind of way...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: andy06shake

The bulk of agencies who require camera use where the officers can't control on/off that doesn't support your theory are what then?

Doing it right. "Switch editing" renders body cameras pointless.

a reply to: Bedlam

and how many officers have access to their footage?

I don't.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Bedlam

and how many officers have access to their footage?

I don't.

Nor should you. It was a BFD in Nashville when we worked as a contractor on their car cameras. They wanted access so they could adjust their stories, as far as I could tell, and they wanted to be able to delete the hard drive contents, and to be able to turn off the cameras and body mics. It was the first question they asked, every class.

"How do we turn it off"
"Where is the 'tape', in case we need to take it out...for preservation"

were the top two questions. Every time.

Not that they could. It was pretty slick. If you drove the car into the range of the precinct, it connected to the wifi and downloaded to three separate servers. None of which they had access to, but if you had deleted one it would have been immediately obvious. If you avoided driving close enough long enough it would get on the trunk and announce your intentional avoidance to three locations. And then dl it over a radio link.

I don't think the officers should have access to it. I also don't think the public should have access to it. It ought to be there as an asset to the court, inviolable, undeletable, inaccessible other than by court order. I don't want to watch you pee, or talk about your old lady, or the trim you're after on the side. That's not my business. And I have no business looking at other people's arrests. That said, it ought to be discoverable without stalling or modification by any attorney in a court case, for either side. At least the bits that make sense for them to have. Or by, say, someone you interact with.

If you roust me and I think you are at fault, I should be able to force the footage of MY encounter with the LEO out of the department that's relevant. No editing, no resistance, no whoopsie it's gone, no $10,000 fee. You get it free, no fight, no come to the station and we'll beat the crap out of you when you try to pick it up. I get a DVD or a download within 48 hours or you pay me some ungodly fine, by law. If not, you know it'll never happen.

Worse, I think we need to kaizen you guys. There ought not be any place at all in the cars, precinct, paddywagons or jail that is not recorded 24/7 and subject to discovery. If some of you (not all) are acting in an untrustworthy fashion, then you all get recorded all the time. Maybe that would help with the blue line issue. It would certainly be a plus with falling down the stairs et al.

a reply to: Bedlam
right.. you missed my point.. again.

She had access to her server. She deleted information..

she has no room to lecture anyone on accountability and oversight.. Even more so when she feels it applies to the police but not her.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Bedlam
right.. you missed my point.. again.

She had access to her server. She deleted information..

It is sort of frustrating when the system is set up to permit certain categories of people to get away with things that are blatantly unlawful, isn't it? Why, it's like the oversight that's supposedly there to keep her behavior in check is compromised by systemic conflicts of interest.

a reply to: Bedlam

yeah but its not..

in this case Congress is investigating her actions and criminal actions can still occur.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Bedlam

yeah but its not..

in this case Congress is investigating her actions and criminal actions can still occur.

I don't think they have the political clout to touch her.

Yeah. That's all we need. More government cameras pointed at us. Notice the direction of focus. If a cop pulls you over and he's wearing a camera, the camera is pointed at YOU. Not him.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Yeah. That's all we need. More government cameras pointed at us. Notice the direction of focus. If a cop pulls you over and he's wearing a camera, the camera is pointed at YOU. Not him.

and?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Yeah. That's all we need. More government cameras pointed at us. Notice the direction of focus. If a cop pulls you over and he's wearing a camera, the camera is pointed at YOU. Not him.

and?

And that's all. If you want to install more surveillance cameras in a country that's already jam packed with them, you need a good excuse. I don't think most cops are out to kill or hurt anyone. They're just wage slaves like everyone else. This is an excuse for more creepy stuff from the government itself.