Body Cams on Cops: Yes? No? Maybe So?

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by AngelNinja2018, May 5, 2015.


Should Body Cams be allowed on Cops?

  1. Yes

  2. No

    0 vote(s)
  3. Other (Please Specify)

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This thread was inspired by a Channel One news broadcast I saw in school today. Any how, it discussed whether cops should have body cams. I personally believe they're a good idea, but I want to hear your opinion.
  2. Yes.

    The only cop who would oppose such an Idea is a cop with something to hide.
    • Like Like x 3
  3. 110% yes.

    Body cams makes everyones lives better, period. They're nowhere near as expensive as local governments would have you believe, especially in comparison to a multi-million dollar payouts to victims families versus tens or even hundreds of thousands for body cams and their maintenance.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. This. Bodycams protect police from false claims and the public from bullying and police violence.
  5. I'm very unsure about this.
    Policemen are just humans with human rights, which includes their privacy. I am very aware that they have a duty to fulfil, but if bodycams are the right way to approach this is questionable in my opinion, as human rights need to be respected - even if your government doesn't do it.
  6. I understand this view honestly.
    However, when exposing crime, cams might be a good idea. It would hopefully prevent police brutality and protect police officers from false claims. It would also be useful footage if the criminal is being charged of failing to cooperate or something, because the evidence is solid.

    But the idea of "If you've got nothing to hide you shouldn't be against it." Is controversial. So idk

    But personally I think the pros outweigh the cons and it could certainly make criminal cases a lot clearer!
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Sure, but I am strictly against violating human rights, no matter the pros. Technically, you're not allowed to torture anyone, even if a war were to break out otherwise (of course the US government doesn't care, even though they accepted this convention). Aynways, I understand that my position is very biased, but this thread is about opinions after all.
  8. Body cams on cops? While on duty, sure. Make the information reasonably available to public audit.

    Off duty? Not so much. They're just a citizen when off duty.
    • Like Like x 4
  9. What part of human rights is violated when we put cameras on the most powerfull "civilians" during their job. We aren't spying on their private lives, we are adding assurance that they do their job. The thing they are payed to do. The thing we have trusted them to do. A trust so fundementally broken in many communities, that we have tons of protests. Protests that then lead to riots.

    If the step is to put a camera on a cop, so that clarity can be achieved, then we are fresh out of other options.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. I personally feel that we should strongly have this as a mandatory thing to both protect the citizens of the from the possibility of police brutality, violence and bullying and the police from the public taking advantage through falsified claims on them. Than and I'd like to know the truth when I hear the occasional story in which no one could tell if a police officer murdered a person following the law or if they were defending themselves. It's a bit hard to completely lie about those kinds of things if there is a camera watching it. I personally don't see anything wrong with this since the police are here to serve and protect the public, and as such I personally believe they should be held under very strict regulations and hard training to be such.

    However if this goes further and more into putting cams on them for both their jobs and their private lives I'd say no completely since, while off duty, they deserve their own right of privacy as well. Just like any other human.

    This statement made me cringe Hellis. This is the exact same reasoning corrupt cops tend to use when someone brings up their right for privacy and the fact that a cop shouldn't intrude on their home without a warrant. This is just like saying, 'Why shouldn't cops intrude inside your home and commit a thorough search if you have nothing to hide?'
    #10 Drakel, May 5, 2015
    Last edited: May 5, 2015
    • Like Like x 4
  11. The difference here Drakel. Is that a camera on a armed and powerfull person is vastly different from the kicking in a door and accessing private property of people who are in a inherently powerless position. Police serve the public, they are supposed to be our protectors, their very purpose is the safety of every man, woman and child who put their trust in the system. By the very nature of their purpose, the camera becomes another tool towards this goal, and only those who do not serve the public but their own mentality and desire to feel powerfull would be opposed to the idea of being held to the standard they are SWORN to uphold.

    My uncle is a cop. One of my best friends is about to be a cop. And I've talked to many people within the system. This mindset seems to be that "Two people become policemen. Those who wants to do good. And those who wants the badge"
    • Like Like x 1
  12. I agree that these cameras are going to be a very useful tool to better enforce the standard that the police as a public service are to serve the people and I completely understand that there is a difference in power. I also understand what you're saying and agree to it, though as I said, saying that they should have nothing ever to hide really isn't too good of a reason. Especially when it was left alone like that.

    This is because that same belief, can also be used against our private lives as well, and at times it IS used against our private lives. So you can see why just saying that sentence alone as a reason enough for 'why cops to have cameras on their person at all times during their job' is rather flawed.
    #12 Drakel, May 5, 2015
    Last edited: May 5, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  13. The problem is that. There are many good reasons why a civilian don't want the goverment snooping. There isn't a single argument against cameras that hold any solid logical or ethical grounds.
  14. I think people aren't aware cops can turn the cameras off. The cameras are supposed to be used to record when the cop interacts with public, so if something does happen, that's the pertinent evidence. It helps protect both the police and the public, and if something happens and the camera's off, it can draw a lot of bad attention on the officer in question. Yes, the system could be abused and officers could "forget" to turn the camera on, but it wouldn't be hard to work an incentive for them to "remember", especially in cases where somebody is injured or god forbid killed by police action. I doubt the cameras are going to be one for an entire shift, because that would be kind of awful. The cops would probably not trust the system or do their jobs well if they felt like they're being spied on all the time (ever work a job where there's security cameras all over the place and the bosses make a point to let you know they check that shit all the time? It's VERY uncomfortable, even if you're doing things right), and I doubt anybody wants to sift through hours of footage of a cop doing paper work, driving his patrol route (that's also what the dashboard cameras are for), and run the risk of the cameras batteries or memory cards running out before an incident.

    Really, cops having cameras is good for both them and the public and should go a long way to build public trust. If I were a police officer, I'd feel better that I had something to cover my ass if something happened. Most cops are good people who really do the job because they want to do good for their community, and I doubt many of them would speak out against having cameras. I should ask my brother in law what he thinks next time I talk to him, he's with the Ontario Provincial Police.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. I went other, because it's not just an unequivocal yes for me. I think it's a good idea, but some specific rules need to be put in place for it to be effective at all.

    First and foremost, the video from these cameras would have to be covered by freedom of information acts so that the public can access them. Without public access, there's no point. Censor any personal info that would be censored in paper documents released under such laws, like blurring out licenses and IDs that pass by the camera, but otherwise it has to be full and unedited content.

    There'd need to be rules about when cameras must be on, and there need to be strict penalties for violations of this rule. Having them recording all the time is just ridiculous and impractical, so this needs to be addressed. Always on cameras would fill the records with completely useless footage for no reason.

    There also needs to be some kind of independent watchdog organization to actually go through these videos more or less at random to go looking for unreported violations, to make sure cops know their recorded misdeeds won't just get lost in the mountain. Cameras on all beat cops would mean thousands of hours of footage generated daily, even when they're only on for actual interaction with people, so without something in place to actually go through some of it it would be way too easy for things to get lost in the system just as they do now.

    Laws would have to be amended to make sure that cop camera footage is always admissible evidence in court. Some places have laws about how recording anyone legally requires their knowledge and direct consent, unless the cops have a specific warrant to wire tap them, and that could be used in a funny backwards way by police to say "they didn't consent to be recorded, the video was obtained illegally and cannot be evidence."

    If those conditions are met though? Yeah, cameras all around. Also make non-worn cameras mandatory in police stations, including holding areas, with similar stipulations. It'd be stupid for the body camera to be a thing, then you end up with someone injured or dead in police custody and whoops there aren't any cameras in the holding area, can't prove what happened.
    • Like Like x 4
    • Useful Useful x 1
  16. Well, I thought they required them to stay on. You see, I don't live in America and don't follow the news there, so... As long as they only have to turn them on when actually doing something that has to do with their duty (rather than talking to a colleague for example), I think it's actually okay, and as Jorick said, certain rules and penalties would have to be put in place.
  17. The modern plea for privacy always amuses me. In any case, professions of countless varieties require certain levels of monitoring. Policing is no different. Just because, no... especially because you are taking on a particular job, you are subject to necessary amounts of privacy-encroachment.
  18. Are we NOT also counting that cameras watching people at all times makes them REALLY uncomfortable, even in the work place? :/

    Personally I think that's a single reason why any cop would be against it that doesn't conclude that they have something to hide.
  19. I meant the police cameras. I am way to tired for this xD
  20. As am I... plus this argument is daft as fuck.

    Let's call it a truce and admit that we both agree that cameras on cops is a good idea and would benefit both the cops and the civilians that they are there to protect.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.