• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should policemen wear body cameras?

Shoul or not?

  • Of course, it will be very useful

    Votes: 42 91.3%

  • No, just NO!

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • Hmm...Hard to say

    Votes: 3 6.5%
  • Total voters
    46

timslash

Banned
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Messages
43
Reaction score
22
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well, what do you think? Will this stop lawlessness or not? I think that it will be very useful! Of course some "smart" people will find how to come over this rule, but for majority...!
And i think it also will decrease number of cases like Michael Brown or Garner!
 

Body cams and dash cams -- both long overdue.
 
I would absolutely never work as a law enforcement officer anywhere without one. Can you imagine if Darren Wilson had been wearing a body Kim all of the race baiters would be forever discredited
 
Definitely. Police should gather usable evidence in investigations and that is what the video cams would do - rather than just the officers memory.

Can you imagine investigators going to a crime scene and not taking a camera and officers NOT recording people's statements in police interviews and interrogations? Yet that is what police officers do every day when they answer calls. Why wouldn't you want the officers to visually and audio record everything?

Why does everyone see this as a matter of only police abuse? That doesn't apply to 1 out of 100,000 police responses and actions. It is, rather, a question of documentation of evidence and what people ACTUALLY said word for word.

There has been NO problem with video cams in police cruisers. Why would there be a problem with officer's wearing one?

I do think officers should be able to turn them off at break time, when speaking with prosecutors, confidential informants, investigate discussions etc - in short only used out in the field answering calls and approaching situations. Why would anyone NOT what actual verifiable evidence.

Many officers now wear recorders. Any problem with that so far?

Hey folks, law enforcement is NOT primarily about the police's conduct. It is about crime - preventing in and successfully catching and prosecuting those who commit crimes.
 
Last edited:
Yes the absolutely should.
 
I don't think getting more cameras in the hands of law enforcement is good for our civil liberties. We need less cameras, not more.

In addition to that, even if we weren't concerned with the inevitable Big Brother surveillance system this would put in the hands of law enforcement, we have to deal with the reality that purchasing and maintaining such a massive number of cameras would be an incredible expense to take on in order to solve a problem that is extremely rare and can be addressed through less expensive means.
 
Last edited:

Of course it will because we have absolutely no video evidence of the Garner incident.:roll:

Right now everyone is looking for a panacea to stop stuff they don't like to hear about. Cameras on cops are going to be just as effective at stopping crime as assault weapon bans will be at stopping school shootings and the basic principle is the same....."Presume they're all guilty and make them pay!!"
 
My concern is under which circumstances, if any, that the images/sounds captured (at public expense) would be made public. We now pay billions for all sorts of gov't surveillance that is never made public. When we, the public, are now denied to know what is shown to a GJ then what difference would it make if the government has access to more "secret" data that we must pay for yet cannot ever see?

If the officers can use this evidence to expose the 90%+ use of plea deals, used to avoid the cost of trials, as letting criminals off with wrist slaps then I say fine; but if this data is kept out of public view then why should we have to pay for it? Some wish the public to see what the officer may have done wrong but not what the criminal actually did - as opposed to what they were allowed to plea it down to.
 

Greetings, ttwtt78640. :2wave:

Shhhh! We're stupid, so we couldn't possibly understand why things are done, so it's better this way. It's the only way to handle us mushrooms - makes for a lot less explaining, you see. Now go watch TV and see what the Kardashians and Paris Hilton are doing today - that's what's important! :shock:
 

There is no right to privacy in public or when communicating with a public official.

The camera systems cost in many cases less then $100 a unit. I drive a truck, I paid $89 out of my own pocket for a dashboard camera. I am not making as much as your typical police officer. The cost is easy to absorb. If the camera stops one bad civil action they've paid for themselves

If I ever became a cop I'd buy one out of pocket if the dept didn't provide them.
 



It will cause worse Luther. :2wave: See Right now.....cops without cameras on them. Have the discretion.....to give people a break. Not arrest them, not take them in, over speeding tickets, give a kid a break etc etc.

With Cameras on them.....and Supervisors or others watching them. They will no longer be afforded that choice. They will be forced to adhere to the Law. Forced to follow the Law and arrest. For ALL laws, petty, and minor included.

Do you think the left knew that when advocating for such?
 

Exactly!

If only there was video of the entire Eric Garner altercation then there would be no outrage.

Wait a minute ...
 

It doesn't have to be a behemoth of a program, but seeing as the government is involved, it would probably end up that way. My common sense tells me that body cam footage should simply be archived by officer/by date. Easy-peasy in the cloud. No complaints? No review. It just shouldn't be that complicated. Having said that, I'm sure there's a way to turn it into a whore's nightmare. There always is . . .
 

I don't think it will stop all lawlessness, but it should go a good way towards protecting both police and citizen.
 
Ikari said:
I don't think it will stop all lawlessness, but it should go a good way towards protecting both police and citizen.
Click to expand...

I think it would go a long way if the Cops were actually filmed..the protest against the killing of Eric Garner for instance..people were protesting..that is their right..and a white cop started pushing a black granny back into the line with some considerable force..what did he think she was going to do to him?? Give him a good handbagging?
 

I am not sure if it will stop lawlessness by bad cops, but it will curb lawlessness by bad cops and it will exonerate good cops from bogus accusations. Contrary to what many die hard anti-police scumbags think cops are not issued young black man hunting licenses nor do cops go out looking for black people to **** with or harm nor are cops KKK and nazis dressed in police uniforms. I bet if officer Wilson had a camera on him or the inside of the squad car the media in general wouldn't have been able to incite the riots in Ferguson.
 
Should everyone where body cameras in public (not by law, just as a habit) that send their images to a hard drive not on the person.
 

Its not about stopping crime. It is about preserving evidence.

As it now, a police officer can say you said anything the officer wants to say you said - and claim he saw anything he wants to claim you saw. Thus he can claim you gave a spontaneous confession, had slurred speech, made threatening motions - or anything - and it your word against the cops.

The camera documents was actually was said and actually seen. Opposition to that camcorder is opposition to the truth.
 
DA60 said:
Should everyone where body cameras in public (not by law, just as a habit) that send their images to a hard drive not on the person.
Click to expand...

You mean sends it to a "cloud?" That happened already. Police seized someone's Ipad and - what do you know - there was no video. But his Ipad had already sent a backup to his "cloud."

Oops.

The officer who seized his camera should be prosecuted for the crime of tampering with evidence, regardless of what the video showed. But won't be.
 

Not his personal 'cloud'...way too easy to hack. I store NOTHING of value in the Cloud.

I am talking about a secure, third party, storage organization that will store your video data from your camera (as you record it - for a small fee) for a certain period of time. Guarantees someone else cannot erase the data.
 
I'm wondering what the point is if our court system won't hold cops accountable for their actions.
 

The camera is only going to have part of the story. It's a reasonable tool to use but it can cause as much trouble as it stops.
 
Lutherf said:
The camera is only going to have part of the story. It's a reasonable tool to use but it can cause as much trouble as it stops.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for some reason.....they don't see that the cops wont have the discretion to let somebody go anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…