It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should all Police Officers Wear Cameras whilst on Duty?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Evening,

Only if the images are live streamed to the "public", the police nor Feds can't opt to turn off or otherwise censor the live stream feed and they have no ability to alter or delete existing footage...THEN maybe it would be a good idea.

-Peace-
edit on 26-2-2014 by Eryiedes because: Typo




posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


This is exactly what I mean when I said live streamed to a Public Body thats external to the police force.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

flammadraco
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


This is exactly what I mean when I said live streamed to a Public Body thats external to the police force.


Never going to happen, officers would be under a huge amount of scrutiny and pressure at all times.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 


I will concede that some critics will cry foul claiming the "feed" can be eavesdropped by the criminals for a tactical advantage over the police or federal unit but that's why I put public in quotes.
It doesn't have to be streamed to the area where the crime is being committed. It can perhaps broadcast such feeds out of state only with a series of simple internet filtres. Police in one state being monitored by the citizens in another state.
Otherwise it will just be another in a long line of tools at the PD's disposal to destroy citizen's rights...plus they'll still arrest you for filming them while standing more than 20 feet away...

-Peace-
edit on 26-2-2014 by Eryiedes because: Typo



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Grenade
officers would be under a huge amount of scrutiny and pressure at all times.


Why is it you think they shouldn't be?

-Peace-



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


They are only human and every small misdemeanor will be blown out of proportion. Also, i just don't like the idea of even more camera's watching the public. Sure we are arguing that this will be used to protect the public but you can rest assured it will be used by the authorities for operations against the people as well.

How many of you arguing the case for every officer to have a camera are outraged when officers show up at peaceful rallies and start filming the protesters? Unless you have committed a crime, you should be afforded the right to privacy. Also officers deal with sensitive information and witness some graphic scenes. If it was all being streamed live how would we censor and afford people the right to privacy. If an officer was called to your home or you for any reason have to deal with the police your life would then be in the public domain. The public would essentially become the judge and jury for every case, constantly second guessing and appealing the decisions of our legal system.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Grenade
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


They are only human and every small misdemeanor will be blown out of proportion.


Au contraire...the camera's would eliminate that.


Also, i just don't like the idea of even more camera's watching the public.


The time to have stopped that from becoming a reality has come and gone sir. At least with the police unable to tamper with feeds, it will keep them honest. Which in and of itself is the exact reason why it will never happen. Any system used by the police will be under their control...and that is a mistake.


Sure we are arguing that this will be used to protect the public but you can rest assured it will be used by the authorities for operations against the people as well.


That's why I advocate that they lose the ability to control or censor it.


How many of you arguing the case for every officer to have a camera are outraged when officers show up at peaceful rallies and start filming the protesters?


I'm not "arguing" for the officers.
This system is coming whether you approve or not...it's just a matter of when.


Unless you have committed a crime, you should be afforded the right to privacy.


I have no beef with this statement.


Also officers deal with sensitive information and witness some graphic scenes.


I would think it's pretty clear to even the mildly brain damaged that accessing a LEO feed would mean exposure to "adult oriented" material. Obviously it's not for the sensitive to get offended at...they can simply opt not to watch it.
Problem solved.


If it was all being streamed live how would we censor and afford people the right to privacy. If an officer was called to your home or you for any reason have to deal with the police your life would then be in the public domain. The public would essentially become the judge and jury for every case, constantly second guessing and appealing the decisions of our legal system.


Not as I proposed it.
Feeds were not accesible in areas where the crimes where being committed or the officer/fed patroled.
Juries would not be an issue.
Constant surveillance would be a powerful tool in keeping the arm of the law honest and accountable for their actions.
All I can say is if the job is "too tough" for them to perform while being monitored, then maybe they have chosen the wrong vocation for a living...

-Peace-



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


You are spot on with all your points you raised, well said. Shame I can only give you a star



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Just my two-cents on the topic at hand...

YES...it should be made mandatory that ALL police officers wear
camera's AT ALL TIMES while on duty.

I can't believe they aren't doing this already...if I were political
enough, and sitting on a city council I vote/propose/or second
any initiative to get this done...would save alot of tax-dollars
providing evidence at trial. It would slow accusations (and actual
occurrences) of police abuse.

It's just a GREAT idea all-around.

The only person who would have any reason to not like this
idea would be a corrupt and abusive cop.

...



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by rival
 





posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


So we're going to be able to watch rape / child abuse victims getting interviewed? gore videos from the scenes of automobile accidents?, also the police deliberately keep info back in certain cases so that they can verify information received and lets not forget they're still human and i don't think its in anyones interest to see some copper wiping his fat ass

its a good idea in theory to watch them while on duty but theres always going to be exceptions to the rule



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 


That's my point, its not just criminals who will be exposed, it is the victims of crime. Also witnesses will be afraid to come forward or talk to the police for fear of reprisal.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
It does not have to be live streamed for the public to see, it should be live streamed to a database held by a public body for the use by both parties of an arrest or other altercation.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 


The main thing is who's going to set up this organization and fund it and what checks and balances will be put in place to stop people stealing/altering/destroying the video evidence as we'd need an organization to audit that one and one to audit the auditors etc



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
From my dealings with the police, i am in scotland, if they wore cameras they would be in alot of trouble. That is speaking from my own personal dealings with them. I have been subjected to awful things when they think they can get away with it.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
It's pretty simple really.

While on duty means, anytime you are active and ready to engage
the public.

Turn it off for regular break, lunch break and bathroom.
If on patrol in a police vehicle the vehicle's camera system
is sufficient, but if you exit the car to engage the public
the personal cam must be on.

As to interrogations of criminals those are recorded as a
matter of police policy so I don't understand the objection.
There is protocol in place to restrict public viewing of
police cam already.

If in a trial the cam recording is available to both defendant
and prosecution...whether a simple police public encounter
or a criminal interrogation.

The only problem, or objection I can empathize with would
be 'lack of privacy' of the police officer on patrol...and as to
that I have no sympathy--many less public, and less important
jobs, in life are under close video and audio recording at all
times while on duty...

The police are already recording anyway...I say make it a
law to ALWAYS record encounters, uploaded in real time
to a precinct data base....with technology we have today
it is a no-brainer.

Speaking of the technology we have today...

Hello NSA, how are you guys doing? I'll be e-mailing
my Granna some recipes in a little while, and then
later I'll be calling my girlfriend for some phone sex...

...just a heads up to let you know



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join