It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Police state Bloomberg looooves security cameras until his cops are ordered to wear them.

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 05:25 PM
Mayor Bloomberg Loves Security Cameras Everywhere... Until His Police Are Ordered To Wear Them.

Lawyers representing the city of New York have filed a request for a stay of Judge Scheindlin's decision and court order pending appeal. Scheindlin found components of the NYPD's stop and frisk unconstitutional in her decision and ordered several remedies, including the installation of independent oversight, changes to the UF250 (stop and frisk) form, an overhaul of the stop and frisk program itself and mandatory lapel cameras for police officers.

Just to be clear, the recent ruling by Judge Scheindlin did not end "stop and frisk". She simply criticized it.

But one of her requirements was to start a pilot program which forces police to wear lapel cameras. Why? Because they work:

When cops in a Rialto, California were forced to wear cameras, their use of force dropped by over two-thirds.

According to a new study by Cambridge University, agencies who used these cameras cut their excessive force complaints in half over the course of a year.

Hamden Police Chief Thomas Wydra said law enforcement agencies using the technology across the country have seen improvement in the behavior of both parties, police and public.

The Mesa Police Department is currently in the eighth month of its own year-long trial program with body cameras. Tuttle mentioned a study — also cited by Judge Scheindlin in her ruling — that showed a 59 percent drop in the use of physical force by officers who wore the cameras.

NYC used to have 500 cameras watching you, but thats not nearly enough. They've since ordered 3,000 more.

Dont want to be watched by government? Bloomberg's response, "who cares"?

Bloomberg: "The Boston bombing is a terrible reminder of why we've made these investments—including camera technology that could help us deter an attack, or investigate and apprehend those involved,"...

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly: “I'm a major proponent of cameras,” Kelly said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “I think the privacy issue has really been taken off the table.

The people who complain about it, I would say, are a relatively small number of folks, because the genie is out of the bottle,” Kelly said. “People realize that everywhere you go now, your picture is taken.”

Now that a judge wants the cops to wear cameras, privacy is a HUGE concern!

Finally, implementing a body camera pilot project itself poses significant harm in terms of time, resources and possible impingement on privacy rights of the public.

edit on 21-9-2013 by gladtobehere because: wording

posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 05:29 PM
reply to post by gladtobehere

Yeah, big surprise there, I want the police he takes as armed guards to Bermuda (where he lives) every weekend to wear 24 hour cameras too.

edit on 21-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 07:44 PM
Personally, I'm not opposed to policemen wearing cameras. If it helps them to keep their authority in check, then why not.

posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 07:44 PM
Double post.
edit on 21-9-2013 by DestroyDestroyDestroy because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

log in