Federally mandated Cameras for cops

[Papageorgio]

So.....we have some riots going on, we have story after story of cops being dicks when cameras are put on them and they dont seem to know it. So why not take a few billion, ( we don't need tanks so cut that out of the budget) and produce enough dash and body cameras for the police.
It would be an extremely easy fix and we wouldnt have brown cases popping up. Or is this just going to get a bunch of state right posts? We have no problem selling armored tanks to local small time Law enforcement, so why not give them some cameras?

It's a sensible idea. My cousin, who is a cop, thinks it is an outstanding idea, because it also protects the cops.

I think it is a good idea, keeps the honest, honest and the criminals off the streets.

 

[TheOldSchool]

All police should wear camera's and if the camera is turned off during an incident that later goes to court the fact that the camera was off should serve as evidence against the officer.

That's messed up, so if technology fails, fuck the police officer.

I recently read that where these cameras are in use, there is no police brutality. We also know that police are killing more people now.

All that money they're using for tanks could be better spent to "serve and protect".

You have links to back that up?

Obviously if there are technical problems that will be considered. If there aren't technical problems and the camera is off the that's the officers fault.

 

[Ravi]

Why not just train cops to not be trigger happy assholes?

 

[Papageorgio]

All police should wear camera's and if the camera is turned off during an incident that later goes to court the fact that the camera was off should serve as evidence against the officer.

That's messed up, so if technology fails, fuck the police officer.

I recently read that where these cameras are in use, there is no police brutality. We also know that police are killing more people now.

All that money they're using for tanks could be better spent to "serve and protect".

You have links to back that up?

Obviously if there are technical problems that will be considered. If there aren't technical problems and the camera is off the that's the officers fault.

Sorry when dealing with the government, "obviously" is not part of their vocabulary. There would need to be more than that to protect a police officer from injustice.

 

[TheOldSchool]

All police should wear camera's and if the camera is turned off during an incident that later goes to court the fact that the camera was off should serve as evidence against the officer.

That's messed up, so if technology fails, fuck the police officer.

I recently read that where these cameras are in use, there is no police brutality. We also know that police are killing more people now.

All that money they're using for tanks could be better spent to "serve and protect".

You have links to back that up?

Obviously if there are technical problems that will be considered. If there aren't technical problems and the camera is off the that's the officers fault.

Sorry when dealing with the government, "obviously" is not part of their vocabulary. There would need to be more than that to protect a police officer from injustice.

I disagree. With great power comes great responsibility. If you're a police officer you are armed and authorized to use lethal force if necessary. If you're approaching a suspect with the intent to detain them and knowing that you are equipped to kill if necessary then it should be your responsibility to make sure your camera is running during the encounter. There are places that are already doing this and it is working.

 

[PredFan]

Agreed. Cameras on cops would serve both the cops and the public well.

 

[Papageorgio]

All police should wear camera's and if the camera is turned off during an incident that later goes to court the fact that the camera was off should serve as evidence against the officer.

That's messed up, so if technology fails, fuck the police officer.

I recently read that where these cameras are in use, there is no police brutality. We also know that police are killing more people now.

All that money they're using for tanks could be better spent to "serve and protect".

You have links to back that up?

Obviously if there are technical problems that will be considered. If there aren't technical problems and the camera is off the that's the officers fault.

Sorry when dealing with the government, "obviously" is not part of their vocabulary. There would need to be more than that to protect a police officer from injustice.

I disagree. With great power comes great responsibility. If you're a police officer you are armed and authorized to use lethal force if necessary. If you're approaching a suspect with the intent to detain them and knowing that you are equipped to kill if necessary then it should be your responsibility to make sure your camera is running during the encounter. There are places that are already doing this and it is working.

"Excuse me please, before you start firing, I need to make sure my camera is working."

 

[TheOldSchool]

All police should wear camera's and if the camera is turned off during an incident that later goes to court the fact that the camera was off should serve as evidence against the officer.

That's messed up, so if technology fails, fuck the police officer.

I recently read that where these cameras are in use, there is no police brutality. We also know that police are killing more people now.

All that money they're using for tanks could be better spent to "serve and protect".

You have links to back that up?

Obviously if there are technical problems that will be considered. If there aren't technical problems and the camera is off the that's the officers fault.

Sorry when dealing with the government, "obviously" is not part of their vocabulary. There would need to be more than that to protect a police officer from injustice.

I disagree. With great power comes great responsibility. If you're a police officer you are armed and authorized to use lethal force if necessary. If you're approaching a suspect with the intent to detain them and knowing that you are equipped to kill if necessary then it should be your responsibility to make sure your camera is running during the encounter. There are places that are already doing this and it is working.

"Excuse me please, before you start firing, I need to make sure my camera is working."

That's assinine.

 

[Stephanie]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Ben Franklin

 

[TheOldSchool]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Ben Franklin

Another post that makes absolutely no sense no matter what context you view it in. Put the paint thinner down Steph.

 

[Plasmaball]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Ben Franklin

Another post that makes absolutely no sense no matter what context you view it in. Put the paint thinner down Steph.

she is the type that supported the Patriot Act when bush signed it into law saying you have nothing to hide, but once Obama got into office it was an issue.

 

[Papageorgio]

That's messed up, so if technology fails, fuck the police officer.
You have links to back that up?

Obviously if there are technical problems that will be considered. If there aren't technical problems and the camera is off the that's the officers fault.

Sorry when dealing with the government, "obviously" is not part of their vocabulary. There would need to be more than that to protect a police officer from injustice.

I disagree. With great power comes great responsibility. If you're a police officer you are armed and authorized to use lethal force if necessary. If you're approaching a suspect with the intent to detain them and knowing that you are equipped to kill if necessary then it should be your responsibility to make sure your camera is running during the encounter. There are places that are already doing this and it is working.

"Excuse me please, before you start firing, I need to make sure my camera is working."

That's assinine.

I know, that is why I disagree with you. They have enough on their plate, if a camera is not working, it is not a police officers fault. We have cameras on our equipment, unless power is deliberately cut. Otherwise any malfunction is not on the operator.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

1) This thread is STILL in "Politics" and not the Rubber Room??
2) This thread has 10 pages of responses???

 

[TheOldSchool]

Obviously if there are technical problems that will be considered. If there aren't technical problems and the camera is off the that's the officers fault.

Sorry when dealing with the government, "obviously" is not part of their vocabulary. There would need to be more than that to protect a police officer from injustice.

I disagree. With great power comes great responsibility. If you're a police officer you are armed and authorized to use lethal force if necessary. If you're approaching a suspect with the intent to detain them and knowing that you are equipped to kill if necessary then it should be your responsibility to make sure your camera is running during the encounter. There are places that are already doing this and it is working.

"Excuse me please, before you start firing, I need to make sure my camera is working."

That's assinine.

I know, that is why I disagree with you. They have enough on their plate, if a camera is not working, it is not a police officers fault. We have cameras on our equipment, unless power is deliberately cut. Otherwise any malfunction is not on the operator.

Your scenario was assinine. If the police are ambushed it's reasonable for them to have their camera's off. Though if they can manage to turn it on it will help identify the criminals later.

If they are responding to a call and their camera is in fine condition it's not unreasonable to expect for them to make sure their camera is on.

 

[Papageorgio]

All police should wear camera's and if the camera is turned off during an incident that later goes to court the fact that the camera was off should serve as evidence against the officer.

Sorry when dealing with the government, "obviously" is not part of their vocabulary. There would need to be more than that to protect a police officer from injustice.

I disagree. With great power comes great responsibility. If you're a police officer you are armed and authorized to use lethal force if necessary. If you're approaching a suspect with the intent to detain them and knowing that you are equipped to kill if necessary then it should be your responsibility to make sure your camera is running during the encounter. There are places that are already doing this and it is working.

"Excuse me please, before you start firing, I need to make sure my camera is working."

That's assinine.

I know, that is why I disagree with you. They have enough on their plate, if a camera is not working, it is not a police officers fault. We have cameras on our equipment, unless power is deliberately cut. Otherwise any malfunction is not on the operator.

Your scenario was assinine. If the police are ambushed it's reasonable for them to have their camera's off. Though if they can manage to turn it on it will help identify the criminals later.

If they are responding to a call and their camera is in fine condition it's not unreasonable to expect for them to make sure their camera is on.

In your original statement, you said nothing about reasonable and as you see in the Ferguson case, reasonable does not work. For if the camera is off, for whatever reason, the officer is going to be guilty. It will be as in your own words "should serve as evidence against the officer."

 

[TheOldSchool]

All police should wear camera's and if the camera is turned off during an incident that later goes to court the fact that the camera was off should serve as evidence against the officer.

I disagree. With great power comes great responsibility. If you're a police officer you are armed and authorized to use lethal force if necessary. If you're approaching a suspect with the intent to detain them and knowing that you are equipped to kill if necessary then it should be your responsibility to make sure your camera is running during the encounter. There are places that are already doing this and it is working.

"Excuse me please, before you start firing, I need to make sure my camera is working."

That's assinine.

I know, that is why I disagree with you. They have enough on their plate, if a camera is not working, it is not a police officers fault. We have cameras on our equipment, unless power is deliberately cut. Otherwise any malfunction is not on the operator.

Your scenario was assinine. If the police are ambushed it's reasonable for them to have their camera's off. Though if they can manage to turn it on it will help identify the criminals later.

If they are responding to a call and their camera is in fine condition it's not unreasonable to expect for them to make sure their camera is on.

In your original statement, you said nothing about reasonable and as you see in the Ferguson case, reasonable does not work. For if the camera is off, for whatever reason, the officer is going to be guilty. It will be as in your own words "should serve as evidence against the officer."

If the camera is in fine working order, and the camera is off, then the officer has neglected a responsibility. These cameras run at all times. If the officer has turned it off then that is suspicious. If the camera has run out of battery then the officer has neglected responsibility. If the officer is not wearing his camera he has neglected responsibility.

 

[Papageorgio]

All police should wear camera's and if the camera is turned off during an incident that later goes to court the fact that the camera was off should serve as evidence against the officer.

"Excuse me please, before you start firing, I need to make sure my camera is working."

That's assinine.

I know, that is why I disagree with you. They have enough on their plate, if a camera is not working, it is not a police officers fault. We have cameras on our equipment, unless power is deliberately cut. Otherwise any malfunction is not on the operator.

Your scenario was assinine. If the police are ambushed it's reasonable for them to have their camera's off. Though if they can manage to turn it on it will help identify the criminals later.

If they are responding to a call and their camera is in fine condition it's not unreasonable to expect for them to make sure their camera is on.

In your original statement, you said nothing about reasonable and as you see in the Ferguson case, reasonable does not work. For if the camera is off, for whatever reason, the officer is going to be guilty. It will be as in your own words "should serve as evidence against the officer."

If the camera is in fine working order, and the camera is off, then the officer has neglected a responsibility. These cameras run at all times. If the officer has turned it off then that is suspicious. If the camera has run out of battery then the officer has neglected responsibility. If the officer is not wearing his camera he has neglected responsibility.

I agree with you, I said so earlier, your scenario is off then, if they are on all the time, you said it was reasonable for them to have the camera off, now you are saying it is on all the time.

You also use the word reasonable, I find that word to be vague and in the scope of the legal field and in the court of public opinion a real cause for concern.

 

[TheOldSchool]

All police should wear camera's and if the camera is turned off during an incident that later goes to court the fact that the camera was off should serve as evidence against the officer.

That's assinine.

I know, that is why I disagree with you. They have enough on their plate, if a camera is not working, it is not a police officers fault. We have cameras on our equipment, unless power is deliberately cut. Otherwise any malfunction is not on the operator.

Your scenario was assinine. If the police are ambushed it's reasonable for them to have their camera's off. Though if they can manage to turn it on it will help identify the criminals later.

If they are responding to a call and their camera is in fine condition it's not unreasonable to expect for them to make sure their camera is on.

In your original statement, you said nothing about reasonable and as you see in the Ferguson case, reasonable does not work. For if the camera is off, for whatever reason, the officer is going to be guilty. It will be as in your own words "should serve as evidence against the officer."

If the camera is in fine working order, and the camera is off, then the officer has neglected a responsibility. These cameras run at all times. If the officer has turned it off then that is suspicious. If the camera has run out of battery then the officer has neglected responsibility. If the officer is not wearing his camera he has neglected responsibility.

I agree with you, I said so earlier, your scenario is off then, if they are on all the time, you said it was reasonable for them to have the camera off, now you are saying it is on all the time.

You also use the word reasonable, I find that word to be vague and in the scope of the legal field and in the court of public opinion a real cause for concern.

Reasonable doubt is vague and should be a cause for concern in some cases. These cameras would go a long way towards fixing that in cases involving police.

 

[Gracie]

So.....we have some riots going on, we have story after story of cops being dicks when cameras are put on them and they dont seem to know it. So why not take a few billion, ( we don't need tanks so cut that out of the budget) and produce enough dash and body cameras for the police.
It would be an extremely easy fix and we wouldnt have brown cases popping up. Or is this just going to get a bunch of state right posts? We have no problem selling armored tanks to local small time Law enforcement, so why not give them some cameras?

Why? The perps and/or their family would just say the camera is rigged in behalf of the cop.

 

[TheOldSchool]

So.....we have some riots going on, we have story after story of cops being dicks when cameras are put on them and they dont seem to know it. So why not take a few billion, ( we don't need tanks so cut that out of the budget) and produce enough dash and body cameras for the police.
It would be an extremely easy fix and we wouldnt have brown cases popping up. Or is this just going to get a bunch of state right posts? We have no problem selling armored tanks to local small time Law enforcement, so why not give them some cameras?

Why? The perps and/or their family would just say the camera is rigged in behalf of the cop.

How?