For, Or Against.

Can't see a down side to it at all.

For.

~ Bill
~ USPictures.com

Will they be selling on FAA?

I don't see how it would have a downside. Any claims of police brutality will be more easily settled with the availability of video.

For. Many of ours have them.

It works both ways... Their accountability and proof for the courts of criminal activity.

(I hate typing on this phone... 2 mins to write the post and 10 fixing auto correct errors)

It surprises me that they don't already have them. Like others above me, I don't see a downside to having them. My wife works for a security company and many of her officers are required to wear them. Now my railroad buddies are somewhat up in arms over a new policy some railroads are putting in that there must be cameras in the cabs of locomotives facing in. I wonder if there any officers who don't think wearing cameras is a good idea.

For. I just see it as an extension of the vehicle dash cams many law enforcement departments have used for years. Now, I wonder how it would work if the citizens had a body cam and informed the police that they were being recorded also?

I've thought of having one for when I might get approached while out shooting. Thought about getting a dash cam, too.

Besides body cams, how about mini cams on guns?..So, every shot can be documented......This might apply to ALL guns.

Seems like a natural extension of dash cams. Maybe soon will all be issued camera at birth. Kids can record abusive parents. Teachers can record behavior problems. Fast food worker cams can record nose picking and poor hand washing habits.

Think of the new reality TV channels that can be created with all of this great footage.

"...how about mini cams on guns?..So, every shot can be documented......This might apply to ALL guns."


Then an additional body cam would have to be mounted on an extension pole, directed at the owner to prove that it was them with the gun with the camera. Just for backup proof that it was actually the owner shooting the gun with the mounted cam. ;)

I think it's a good idea. It could prevent a lot of speculation when police and/or suspect actions are under scrutiny.

Might make some great officer porn when they arrest street hookers.

if it keeps cops in check, and it keeps them from racial profiling, beating people for no reason, and any of the other bad things cops do then i'm all for it.

---Mike Savad

The number of bad cops is much smaller than the number of good cops, but you almost never hear about the good ones.

it only takes one bad one to make the rest look bad, and to treat the others poorly. same thing for people of different races.

---Mike Savad

For! When we as a people give someone as much power as we give to police, there should be checks and balances. I believe it should be a law that all officers no matter how large or small the department, be equipped with them. Having cameras on a dash when the officer is out of range is like not having one at all.

--Donna Proctor

For. It would be beneficial to the citizens who were wrongly treated, but, it would also be beneficial to the good officers when there is false accusations of wrongdoing against them.

I'm all for it, I'm also for the public using camera phones whenever possible for any policing issues.

Yes, I'm for it, although I would not want to wear one myself all day long knowing every single word and thing I did was totally recorded.

For the police and military it is advantageous I think to have the use of body cams. But this may not be so simple a solution as to what may have happened in an interaction with police.

Perhaps body cams might be a good idea for non police and plain citizens as well.

I'm sure all cameras are different as is the policy for each department. Some cameras are manually turned on while I suppose others are automatically activated in some way. We need transparency from our leaders and those who serve us in the police.

I would really like it to be mandatory for all individuals serving public office in all levels of government to have one.

If we all wear them, would'nt that radically change life as we know it?, imagine holding a lawyer accountable, a judge, a doctor, a stock broker.

I did a Google search and came across this article --

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/23/342623830/even-police-body-cameras-can-lose-sight-of-the-truth

As long as the police have no control over them, such as shutting them off if they want, then I think t will benefit both sides. If they do have the power to shut them off then what's the point. Also as long as the video can't be manipulated.

I read an article by Paul Butler who is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center AND a former trial attorney with the United States Department of Justice. Although I found the entire article interesting (he also wrote about Ferguson, MO) I chose this quote since it directly speaks to the OP:

"Cameras improve working conditions for the majority of police officers who are hard-working and law-abiding. In jurisdictions where police cars are equipped with dashboard cameras, police misconduct complaints have gone down – along with the taxpayer expenditures to settle them. That’s partly why Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier has recommend a pilot program in which D.C. officers will wear body cameras. She sees it as a win-win, protecting cops as much as civilians. The police will have evidence for their cases, and citizens will have evidence when they allege mistreatment. It also can address complaints about discourteous treatment by police – rude conduct or abusive language. Officers say some citizens don’t treat them very well either. Knowing a camera is running should make everyone nicer.

His article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/15/ferguson-police-broke-the-law-when-they-stopped-civilians-from-videotaping-them-and-theyre-just-the-latest/

PDF paper on "Police Misconduct Complaints Have Gone Down":
http://policecomplaints.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/office%20of%20police%20complaints/publication/attachments/Final%20policy%20rec%20body%20camera.pdf


--Donna Proctor

Thank you for sharing that, Donna. I look forward to reading the entire article when I have time.

The latest news on LEOs use of body cameras.

The chief of police in Denver has plans to equip all of its police with body cameras.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-police-body-camera-experiment-chief-will-report-on-results-wednesday

"...The chief of police in Denver has plans to equip all of its police with body cameras. ..."


Good move on their part. Something sort of off-topic, but has me wondering lately, due to seeing it multiple times on tv and videos: What is the purpose of the top, high-ranking law enforcement people wearing 4 or more stars on their collars? They're starting to look like Admirals and Generals (whose rank insignia have been around for quite awhile). I would think one star would be sufficient. Just how many people are in their departments that need stars for rank designators? Just wondering. :)

"What is the purpose of the top, high-ranking law enforcement people wearing 4 or more stars on their collars?"

Not all Police Chiefs wear 4 star lapels. Some wear 3 and from what I've always understood, the number of stars they wear depends on personal choice - the chief dictates their own standards. When they wear 4 stars, they use the 3 - 2 -1 system for those directly under them. For those who choose 3 stars, it becomes 2 -1 below them.

How is anyone outside of the department to know their ranking otherwise?

Donna,

I used 4 stars mostly as an example, and am fairly used to how ranks work after spending a 21 year career in the military. I had heard it before, but forgotten what you mentioned concerning police chiefs pretty much choosing what they wear. I saw one law enforcement fellow, who had 4 stars on each collar, plus 4 on each epaulet of his shirt. There were mentions of how the police are nearing/leaning towards militarization, and the over-use of stars brought that to mind.

I have one brother who is retired law enforcement, and wore typical LT (Lieutenant) bars. My other brother is a retired LT from the fire department, and his insignia consisted of the typical F.D. bugles/horns. Just saying, nothing flashy. :)

Hey Greg, I'm all for taking away their tanks and machine guns and other military armament but I'm fine with there little bit of uniform bling if they loose the fatigues. lol

I'm a bit leery of the camera thing. Is this thing gonna be on when he goes to the john? How embarrassing... Not so mundane, can he turn it off whenever he wants, therefore making some actions just as questionable then as now when all we have is a dash cam (if they're even range of that)?

What is the purpose of the top, high-ranking law enforcement people wearing 4 or more stars on their collars? They're starting to look like Admirals and Generals (whose rank insignia have been around for quite awhile). I would think one star would be sufficient. Just how many people are in their departments that need stars for rank designators? Just wondering. :)

@ Greg - Oh. It looked like a real question that deserved an answer.

"...Oh. It looked like a real question that deserved an answer. "


And I appreciate the response. :)

OK, you're welcome :)

Does this story change anyone's mind? I am for body cams, but this did make me stop and pause --

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/bryce_dion_cops_crew_member_killed_omaha_police.html

'Cops' TV crew member shot, killed by Omaha police officer while filming show

In 2010, a TV crew for the A&E reality show "The First 48" recorded a Detroit police raid in which a 7-year-old girl was accidentally killed by an officer. That incident highlighted concerns about whether TV cameras influence police behavior, perhaps encouraging showboating. But some experts and officers believe TV crews increase accountability.

Schmaderer bristled at the suggestion that his officers overreacted knowing that cameras were recording them, calling it "absolutely ridiculous."

The police chief said he accepted the invitation from "Cops" to film in Omaha in the name of transparency. "Personally, I will live with this forever," Schmaderer said. "If I'd have known that this would happen, of course, I wouldn't have done it."

Thanks Joe.

I have not yet read the entire story but heard a short piece on the news.

I'll be back late tonight to comment further.

Meanwhile, thanks again to everyone for their continued input.

@ greg

1 star = can read and write
2 stars = can use puter and fax machine
3 stars = can drive a car
4 stars = donuts for free

;)

some departments are using body cameras for a while now

http://www.policefoundation.org/sites/g/files/g798246/f/201303/The%20Effect%20of%20Body-Worn%20Cameras%20on%20Police%20Use-of-Force.pdf

Rudy, I see them in the near future in the Metro-Miami areas and eventually every major big city.

Stanislav,

Lol, outstanding list! :)

Mario-they already have them

Miami Pd does not yet ,actually there was an incident involving a IA investigator and a patrol man when on a traffic stop they got into a fight, which the patrol man recorded with a gopro camera which was not issued by the department, the video is here in this thread, you gotta see it if you haven't

“Is this thing gonna be on when he goes to the john?”

Good question, Ashe.

As I understand it the camera is only to be turned on when the LEO leaves the car for any investigation/traffic stop... ect.

As well, if the officer chooses to turn the camera off he/she will be held accountable.

Here is more food for thought.

“The biggest downside, he said, is the potential "chilling effect on police-citizen interaction." --- from the following article.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/body-cameras-on-police--simple-idea-complex-ramifications-b99338528z1-272967071.html

I apologize for not having time to reply to all who have commented here. It has been a busy time for me.

“Police officers in Ferguson, Mo., are now wearing body cameras.”

Read the story and watch the video here:

http://www.kshb.com/news/ferguson-police-officers-begin-wearing-body-cameras

Oh I think it's about time.These officers should be protected at all times & if a camera will help them,I am all for it!

To little to late! If these officers were wearing cameras before these shootings maybe these shooting would not have taken place in the first place,if anything these cameras will further be a safety measure to ensure that police are using justifiable force and acting within the law and if they are not then the appropriate legal action can be taken against the violating officer.The purpose of the cameras is not only to protect the police but the citizens also.

I agree both the public and law enforcement are going to be well served once these cameras are in use.

As for: “To little to late!” ?

I always say, “better late than never”.

I was implying that in the case of the Ferguson pd that it took what happened for them to go to the cameras, maybe if they had them before the shooting which led to the civil unrest it could all have been avoided. Certainly there was some disconnect to say the least between the police and the citizenry or the situation would not have gone to where it did, hence my comment "to little to late". But the cameras are good!

Point taken, Mario. I agree. They should have been wearing these cameras long before now.

There are cameras EVERYWHERE these days. It has become common knowledge that the cameras on your computer and cell phone are often monitored. I think it's only fair "The Enforcers" should be monitored too. What could possibly be wrong with a little bit of accountability?

Perhaps there IS a good argument against them, but I can't think of one...