The biggest reason I am for bodycams has nothing to do with putting criminals on the street away. I want them to hold public officials accountable while on the clock. Also helps in cases of false accusations Against the police. I see it paying for itself in the end. For those that do their jobs right I dont see these as an issue. For those that may cross a line sometimes and ones that turn a blind eye to it, they may not like them.More technology, yeah that'll fix everything. One more great big hole to throw money in. Might see a little bit of good come from it, might see a little bit of bad. At the end of the day it doesn't and never will help put bad guys in jail and keep them there.
More technology, yeah that'll fix everything. One more great big hole to throw money in. Might see a little bit of good come from it, might see a little bit of bad. At the end of the day it doesn't and never will help put bad guys in jail and keep them there.
The biggest reason I am for bodycams has nothing to do with putting criminals on the street away. I want them to hold public officials accountable while on the clock.
On balance, you seem to be an anti police more than not? Why not volunteer to wear the badge, and learn the other side of the story? Or quit piping up in only anti cop threads?The sky has not fallen in places that have adopted body cameras, and cases like that roadside shooting have shamed Indiana for being behind the curve. All on-duty LEOs in the state should have dash cameras plus body cameras in operation during any interactions with criminals or the public. It is absolutely unacceptable to have a person lying dead on the ground and a police officer shrugging and saying "no body camera, no dash camera, guess you'll have to take my word for it huh?".
On balance the cameras seem to exonerate the police far more than they cause problems, and the content they've generated has been invaluable to both the civilian and professional defense communities. Find the money. Get it done.
I’m torn. Always on is the only way they can be useful. If they can be turned off, why have them? That in itself poses problems, Officer Fife needs to drop a deuce, can he/she turn the cam off? What happens when said Officer Fife, while dropping said duece, “sits” in on a drug deal/ goes to gunfight? Do we turn cam on?
Im on your side with this, I’m simply stating that always on is the only way they are useful. Again, that presents problems as you stated, privacy concerns for you, and Joe Citizen. A question, during your buffer w/o audio, assuming you remember to double tap, who is responsible for the buffered no audio/video time? It seems to me, the same as random ass video from twenty uninvolved “bystanders” at that point? Trust me, I got out of the LE game before everyone was a CNN reporter, so I don’t know.Our cameras run in “standby” mode until activated by a simple double tap on a large front-mounted button. Once activated there is a buffer of video (w/o audio) before the activation. This buffer is adjustable between zero seconds and five minutes. Our policy states that all call-based interactions with the public be recorded and recommends that ALL interactions be recorded.
Cameras running all of the time is not practical nor desirable. Camera footage is subject to information requests by the public. There are real privacy concerns (not just for officers) that are not easily overcome.
Total BS!! You have to wear them, you can use them, good or bad.There’s plenty of technology now to take the onus away from the officer when it comes to turning the recorder on and off. You have systems that have accelerometers to detect running, force, weapon being drawn etc... you also have systems that mesh up with dispatch so they automatically come on when an officer gets dispatched to a run. I’m all for them. The questions now have become not when do they get turned on, but when can they get turned off, and can an officer review the footage before writing a report. Believe it or not, there are groups like the ACLU who want the officers to have to turn the things off at the request of the person they are interacting with. They also want to disallow reviewing the video prior to report writing because it’s unfair. they want officers to type a report from memory and either overlook facts or remember something differently so that they can cry “liar liar pants on fire” at the first discrepancy.
Im on your side with this, I’m simply stating that always on is the only way they are useful. Again, that presents problems as you stated, privacy concerns for you, and Joe Citizen. A question, during your buffer w/o audio, assuming you remember to double tap, who is responsible for the buffered no audio/video time? It seems to me, the same as random ass video from twenty uninvolved “bystanders” at that point? Trust me, I got out of the LE game before everyone was a CNN reporter, so I don’t know.
I recall a shooting not that long ago in Crawfordsville that was talked about extensively on this forum. A lot of people seemed to think bodycam footage might have provided answers to a the situation.
You're very right phylodog. They dont show the whole truth or even the real truth sometimes. Nothing is perfectA lot of people assume that a camera will tell the whole story accurately. They very rarely do, they don't see what an officer sees. I get the arguments as to why they could be beneficial but the technology to deliver on that wish doesn't exist yet.
More technology, yeah that'll fix everything. One more great big hole to throw money in.