Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras
Several readers sent word that U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has begun speaking in favor of mandatory cameras for police across the country. "Everywhere I go people now have cameras. And police officers are now at a disadvantage, because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of the encounter. And it gives the impression that the police officer has overreacted when they haven't." This follows the recent controversy ove the shooting death of Michael Brown in a police incident, as well as a White House petition on the subject that rocketed to 100,000 signatures.
McCaskill continued, "I would like to see us say, 'If you want federal funding in your community, you've got to have body cams on your officers. And I think that would go a long way towards solving some of these problems, and it would be a great legacy over this tragedy that's occurred in Ferguson, regardless of what the facts say at the end as to whether or not anyone is criminally culpable."
McCaskill continued, "I would like to see us say, 'If you want federal funding in your community, you've got to have body cams on your officers. And I think that would go a long way towards solving some of these problems, and it would be a great legacy over this tragedy that's occurred in Ferguson, regardless of what the facts say at the end as to whether or not anyone is criminally culpable."
Of course, somebody will think this a bad idea...
Or will we one day hear, that, unfortunately, the cameras worn by the officers involved had "malfunctioned" at the most inopportune moment?
(Pay no attention to the remains of chewing gum around the lenses.)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The problem with this is that if all cops feel like they're being audited all of the time, they're less likely to let you off the hook for a minor violation. Then since they have to charge you with something, and there's supporting evidence, you're not going to get a plea or reduction from a mandatory sentence in court.
I know that doesn't sound like a big deal but cops let thousands of people off per day on minor things where people just need a warning.
I mean, that or just make it such that the case is dismissed if the device fails and no other hard evidence exists.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Fewer complaints against the cops, complaints get resolved quickly and fairly, fewer cases of cops using violence, they caught one copkiller because the cop he killed had filmed his face.
It's been good for just about everyone, yet some cops keep resisting. I guess because they no longer get their 3 months paid vacation while complaints get kicked around by the unionistas before being summarily dismissed, replacing that with a day off while the tape is reviewed is a hard sell.
More federal intrusion into state matters? I'm in favor of the idea but Washington should f*** right off. They are welcome to introduce it for federal law enforcement, of course.
Make evidence retrieved without camera coverage inadmissible, citations issued without camera coverage inadmissible, and so on.
and states are completely free to fund their own law enforcement needs without asking the fed for money
They already have dash cams that are used in evidence.
I am uncomfortable about this idea, though. Think face recognition. Cops see a lot of iffy people daily. Also, If not handled right, it could awaken the probable cause issue.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Fine. But the fed shouldn't be taking that money from states' residents in the first place. It's subversion of the constitution by the backdoor and should be stopped.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
For once, a form of government surveillance I can support!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It's a good idea, don't get me wrong. It's about time we used this ubiquitous cheap technology in an obviously beneficial way. It's a good move, and one I support.
But either after this comes about, or as part of the deal, the content of that camera needs to be stored offsite and specifically out of the reach of the police officer. Otherwise we're going to see a lot of data simply go missing at convenient times. To be frank, we can't trust police departments to hold onto evidence that could incriminate themselves.
And any evidence that an officer tampered with their camera in an effort to suppress incriminating evidence should be dealt with exactly as if they had destroyed evidence. Because that's what it is.
Though I don't think, this particular one is a bad idea, I am worried about the yet another illustration of how the Federal government's control reaches into the crooks and nannies it was never supposed to reach:
By ratcheting up the Federal taxes, the Federal government has come into position to dictate the terms to local governments, who can neither print money nor raise their taxes to finance themselves without bankrupting local economies. But don't you worry — it is not dictatorship, you can always refuse the federal monies, can you not?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If the camera is damaged but the footage survives, and the last frame shows you wrecking the camera, then you've got some explaining to do. To a judge.
...it gives the impression that the police officer has overreacted when they haven't.
...when they might not have. (FTFY, Claire... you Fascist P.o.S.).
And any use of force without a camera should be subject to civilian laws (i.e. no qualified immunity), which impose a MUCH stricter standard on what constitutes "self-defense". As other areas of government have been forced into openness and transparency we somehow let police departments escape from the most vital part -- scrutiny of the actual "policing", audit trails of each interaction with civilians.
That horse has left the barn. The states are federated, the USA might as well be a single state. Why do we even bother thinking of states as individual legal entities any more.
Albuquerque has had problems recently with police shooting a homeless man and their lapel cameras show something that appears to be a real unjustified use of force.
Now that there is loads of bad press from the released videos, the last couple of "incidents" have been plagued with ummm... Camera Malfunctions! That's it. The cameras just malfunctioned and didn't work. We just don't understand it. Sorry, but we don't have any video of that last shooting...
A really good idea, but the devil is in the details.
It is not a subversion of the Constitution, since the 16th Amendment explicitly authorizes it.
Well, I guess that since a tiny slice of the cops MIGHT disable their cameras, we shouldn't do it at all. We probably shouldn't do anything at all, ever. We should probably just make murder legal and stop prosecuting it, since some people still murder...
I do not understand how people with this outlook can get anything done in life.
Cameras are good. They keep everyone, cops and public, polite. If the camera doesn't work, that comes out in the courtroom. That's what the courtroom is for.
It's subversion of the constitution by the backdoor
And hence the expression "getting bent over..."
because they are individual, for a list of things so long the text file would take megabytes.
Grampian Police started this a year ago and the police in London in May.
I agree, but let's start with the IRS on this one. The feds have had data retention rules in place for many years but if the DA refuses to prosecute the guilty it's a toothless rule.
"And police officers are now at a disadvantage, because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of the encounter. And it gives the impression that the police officer has overreacted when they haven't."
Or maybe they have, because they have the legal authority to use force and the citizenry they are sworn to protect and serve do not.
I find it a very disturbing trend that "ordinary citizens" are now viewed as dangerous and "the enemy" from which the noble police (and other official institutions) must be protected. When I grew up, the general tone was that of Blackstone's Formulation ("It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"). Now it seems to be "It's better that ten innocent persons suffer than that one guilty person escape".
Fine. But the fed shouldn't be taking that money from states' residents in the first place. It's subversion of the constitution by the backdoor and should be stopped.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Sixteenth Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
So, the taxes are EXPLICITLY a power delegated to the United States.
My biggest concern is that it seems to presently be somewhat difficult to get the cops to ever release footage they do shoot from their cars. As long as these videos are made part of public record and freely available for anyone to view then I can see this being a major step in several ways.
Just like everything else in this country, a few bad apples ruin it for the rest of us.
My dad is a retired cop, very honest guy (though maybe I'm a bit biased). Most of the guys on the force were genuine good guys, of course there was 1 or 2 jackass's that would do stupid shit.
If a chest cam is going to eliminate the contradictions between the cop and the suspect, so be it. A few thousand people died 13 years ago in a terrorist attack and now the rest of us who want to fly on a commercial aircraft are treated as potential terrorists.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
It's 2014 and nobody uses tape to record. Recorded data should be sent to a remote data store that the defendants, PD and DA have read only access to.
I'd like to see a camera in every public school classroom as well.
It would end the 'he said/she said' arguments when a kid is being disruptive and the parent refuses to believe their snowflake is anything other than perfect.
It could also allow for a better means of evaluating a teacher's performance. Currently it is done with in person audits by an administrator...teachers behave quite differently under that situation.
That is all.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Let's expand this idea and have every politician wear a camera so we see all the BS the do and say. Kind of like a front row seat in the sausage factory...
Don't even need that -- just if something happens off-cam, the officer's word means next to nothing and the ruling is heavily weighted towards the plaintiff. If officers found that their testimony in court is automatically thrown out if they don't play by the recording rules, there'd be less messing with evidence.
Constitutional amendments libertarians don't like are unconstitutional FYI.
Yup, you can see how effective a camera mounted on a police officer is here.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
1st) You make police video everything they do.
2nd) having won that battle, then you setup procedural rules and a review/revise cycle which feeds into:
3rd) having won that battle, then you setup laws to define use
4th) having won that battle, you give somebody oversight and punitive powers for enforcement.
You can't have it all or know it all from the start. If you start out defeated, you'll never win. It might be a waste of money to buy cameras that won't be used but at least they exist; someday.... after a big tragic event, the next step forward could be taken.
We need laws with limited length, scope, and legalese; how to do this without breaking the process (current dysfunction aside,) is beyond me at this time. The iterative process which is required is greatly undermined by infrequent massive bloated and disjointed patches.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Where's the beef?
Objecting in principle to this specific use of federal "purse string" power is pointless - the principle stands whether or not cameras on cops do or not. Congress has been using the power of the purse to bully states into compliance virtually since the Union began.
And objecting to the specifics of this proposal is inane - the proposal of forcing cops to wear cameras is a solid and popular one. There's no associated diminution of civil liberties, and clear and enormous benefit in the goal of advancing the cause of justice.
So then why raise the ideological issue here and now? Would you really be happier if the feds didn't use the power they have (and will have regardless of this case) to force cops to wear cameras?
I'll be happier when I see cameras on the politicians. It'd be interesting to know what they agree to do in private lunch meetings with corporate CEOs and billionaire bankers. Criminally interesting, I suspect.
Or maybe, just possibly, cops are like almost every other human being and reject the notion of having their every move on tape. I would hate that, regardless of the benefits.
That sounds more like a passive-aggressive mafia threat than a realistic possibility. "Oh, you better not do that, or else we might have to stop being so lenient with you!" Why would wearing cameras mean that "they have to charge you with something"? Why would the public tolerate a police force that operates on a mentality like that?
This is exactly why we need cameras. Individual departments and officers are unique, but in general the American public has lost its faith in its police forces, and for damned good reasons. Police have shown themselves, in too many instances lately, to behave like a well-funded, well-organized group of thugs than exemplars of honorable behavior, law and order.
Police are there to serve and protect our communities, and they serve the way we want them to serve and at our discretion. Any deviation from that order should be met with pink slips for any commanding officers or subordinates unable or unwilling to adapt to the reasonable demands of their bosses.
If someone complains about an interaction with an officer where the officer's camera has no record of the interaction, the officer is assumed to be guilty.
That should give officers incentive to ensure their cameras are in working order.
To an independent body that doesn't report to the police.
Or maybe, just possibly, cops are like almost every other human being and reject the notion of having their every move on tape. I would hate that, regardless of the benefits.
With great power comes great responsibility. If someone's going to have a license to kill then they damn should be monitored in case they abuse it.
Highway funding is regularly tied to compliance with federal laws, some of which are simply usurpation of local or state authority. Speed limits, for instance, drinking age, and DWI laws. There are other examples too numerous to easily list here.
The fight is to prevent the feds from tying the money to anything. Which should mean states and municipalities solving the problem themselves.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I'm not ready to give in yet.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Just a few years ago, I got pulled over for honking my horn at someone that was about to hit me. I don't think the cop saw the other car... but whatever. When he walked up to the car he yelled "Something wrong with your horn??!?!" to which I replied "Nope, I just tested it and it worked just fine." his reply was to draw his gun on me. I'm white, was 35 at the time, ware business casual and a business haircut.
This isn't a race issue, it's a cop issue. I've had numerous run-ins with the police like this that more or less boil down to me having a smart mouth and not "respecting their authority" because, quite frankly, I don't. I shouldn't be afraid every time I get pulled over, but I am. That's not right.
My son is adopted, and African American, and you're damned sure he's getting the talk when he's old enough. The police are not your friends, they are not here to help. They can legally murder you where you stand and get away with it on a routine basis. I would not say that the majority of them are "Good guys" and this is just a few bad eggs. I think the position attracts certain kinds of people that have ego problems and use the job to exert a psychological need to control others. The screening process and training they receive needs to change radically. I've never had a positive encounter with a police officer. Even when my home got broken into they used the opportunity to search my belonging because it was a "crime scene" That sort of behavior engenders distrust and leads to less crime being reported.
This is why it isn't common.
I think, though, that this is more of a temporary hurdle. Once it's in place, IF it's used properly, there's really no issue. Every bank teller in America has a camera on them at all times, as does nearly ever cashier and casino worker. Most every cube-dweller is subject to email and web tracking software at work as well, watching ever online click and transaction. For most everyone it's not an issue, and in this case there are more reasons - as a cop - to want it than not in the long run because it has the opportunity to make their job easier when it happens to be the hardest.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I mean 100,000 signatures is nothing, lets get the ball rolling on all kinds of other glorious bullshit.
As someone in the business of selling law enforcement equipment, I'll tell you right now, most of the body cams available for law enforcement are compete and utter crap.
Not only that, they don't have an effective back office solution to manage all that video. Sure you can dump the video onto a hard drive, but it needs to be indexed somehow so it can be searched for later by officer name, date, etc.
A few companies are trying to make body worn cameras that don't look like blair witch recordings, but at this point, there's still at least a year away before anything usable arrives.
Was Michael Brown surrendering with his hands up when he was shot, or was he attacking the police officer? Body cam video would have gone a long way to answering that question.
When investigating complex matters like police shootings, more evidence is better. There is no way you can convince me that less data would make the investigation better.
What the fuck are you talking about. libertarians... such trash. much moron.
You are mistaken. President Kennedy, although he may not have been President yet, once warned about local and state governments accepting federal money. He expressed concern that federal money may bring federal meddling and control over local affairs. In particular he was speaking about education.
Most Democrats and Republicans agreed with Kennedy's opinion. I think the general consensus at the time was to use federal money only for one time expenses, like the construction of a school, but not for ongoing expenses like maintenance of the school or teacher salaries.
I think it was Montana that once tried to refuse the federal money over the speed limit (not many here have driven a Montana highway at 55).
Arizona tried to ignore 55 and not enforce it in certain areas where they thought higher speeds were appropriate and safe. The feds got annoyed and tried to cut highway funding for Arizona. So Arizona started enforcing the 55 mph speed limit. A friend got pulled over and received a ticket, not for speeding -- a moving violation that would put points on his drivers license and raise his insurance rate, but for "improper use of finite resources" -- an infractions that did not show up on one's driving record. In other words he received a ticket for "wasting gas" not speeding.
More selfies. *sigh*
Not to be too pedantic, but the by the "Fed" are you referring the Federal Government or the Federal Reserve? The "Fed" is the the Federal Reserve. I realize it's all cool and stuff to shorten long words, but sometimes doing so can completely change the meaning of what you are trying to say.
Separation of powers happened because the founding fathers understood that no single concentrated power could be trusted. Universal surveillance of all government officials would simply be an extension of this principal.
The founding fathers would approve filming government at ALL levels, from congress to notary. Multiple cameras (in the case of cops, dash-cam and chest-cam), streaming to web, with read-only access and multiple, physically separated backups.
There is no *technical* reason this can't be done, and frankly, it's a good idea. Think how much crap congress and K-Street wouldn't have gotten away with, had this been in place.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Sixteenth Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
So, the taxes are EXPLICITLY a power delegated to the United States.
And that power was intended for Congress to raise taxes to a level which made it difficult for the states to tax enough to fund their own infrastructure, and then offer to grant that money back to the states as long as the states did their bidding, right? Right?
Sigh. Unfortunately, reading the comments so far, it is all too easy to believe that people are stupid enough to think that is actually how it is meant to work.
So, now the argument is "it's Constitutional, but I don't like how it's been implemented." Got it.
The president doesn't have the power to require local law enforcement to wear cameras. Read your constitution ye petition signers. Article II.
Absolutely. After all, there's no difference in, say, the ability to get an abortion, or own a handgun, from one state to another.
I took a citizens class at the local PD. They said an officer had received many complaints against him. In response, the chief required that he have his radio broadcasting audio during every single interaction he had with the public. The complaints ceased.
This is an awesome idea. Not original at all, of course. I fully support it.
Make evidence retrieved without camera coverage inadmissible, citations issued without camera coverage inadmissible, and so on.
Even simpler: net pay = gross salary * camera uptime (calculated using the lowest uptime across the whole department)
Prison guards are just as, if not more so, in need of body cameras. It would head off a lot of abuse that takes place out of sight today. As a general rule I'm not thrilled with the feds big-footing states, but in cases like these, where unions have politicians in absolute thrall, I think it's not only desirable, but necessary.
Cheaper than equipping all the cops, and may expose more crimes. Transparency is good for all.
And police officers are now at a disadvantage, because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of the encounter.
Then how about you pass some federal legislation to make it fully legal to record police in public? You know how many people are told to stop recording and arrested for refusing to do so? Cops aren't at a 'disadvantage'. They don't want cameras, because they know right now it is their word over the word of criminals, suspected criminals, random people on the street, or dead guys. Guess who they think are going to be believed. They are just happy to have no recordings in case they screw up.
"I would like to see us say, 'If you want federal funding in your community, you've got to have body cams on your officers. And I think that would go a long way towards solving some of these problems, and it would be a great legacy over this tragedy that's occurred in Ferguson, regardless of what the facts say at the end as to whether or not anyone is criminally culpable."
First, this is just another example of how the federal government takes our tax money, and then 'requires' things that are completely outside the scope of their constitutional authority to get said money back (in some form). The federal government has absolutely no power to require a local municipality to buy a camera and require their cops to wear them. Stick to your constitutional duties, because you guys are simply spreading out into areas you have no business being in.
Second, he is another jerk that believes in the old saying, "Never let a good crisis go to waste". Are you for gun control? Just have your legislation tucked away ready to go after the next school shooting, regardless of weather or not your pre-written legislation would have done any good in the latest crisis. Would a camera have done anything to prevent this shooting? Or determine who was at fault? Who knows, pass the legislation while the people are pissed!
Third, I actually think cameras are a good idea, but let states and municipalities determine if they are necessary. There are plenty of towns in this country that simply have no need for cameras because the odds of them really being needed are so small that it would be a poor use of resources. There are something like half a million cops in this country, and even at $1,000 apiece (camera, storage, support, etc.), you are looking at a price tag of half a billion dollars, from a federal budget that already bleeds red like crazy.
That is exactly the opposite of what we want. You are suggesting that if a cop wants to severely beat you, all he has to do is disable his camera, and any charges against him will be dismissed.
I'm male and I got a written warning once. Of course the fact that it was an official written warning means this was standard procedure and would in no way be affected by a camera. The fact that no speed was written on the warning (despite their being a blank for it) explains how I got it... he'd spent a few minutes trying to get me to tell him a speed, which I wouldn't. Obviously he didn't know. Fortunately a reasonably honest specimen for a cop, even if he did try to trick me into confessing.
>yet some cops keep resisting
Maybe they should "STOP RESISTING!".
"Smile for the camera, sir!"
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Not only should cops and squad cars be mandated to have extensive cams working at all times we need exactly the same thing in our jails and prisons. Abuse by guards as well as inmates should be made impossible. And we need voice as well as video. No cop should ever be able to blackmail an inmate or make deals with inmates under any conditions. And inmates should find it vastly difficult to conspire with other inmates. The days when a guard could force a prisoner to have sex or sell drugs within the prison or be rewarded for being an enforcer for the guards needs to come to a total end. Secrets are evil in and of themselves and secrets perpetuate crime as well. To enable the Truth to set us free we need to turn on very bright search lights.
You won't ever get a perfect law. An easy addition would be to include in the law a simple addition to the law (or secondary law). Any law enforcement persons found to be tampering with, disconnecting, hindering, or intentionally destroying the cameras and associated equipment for transmitting, encoding, decoding, viewing, or storing video will be subject to a penalty of 5-10 years imprisonment.
This is still not perfect, but if you are a good citizen and see a cop off in an alleyway tampering you can film the act and call it in.
I fully agree that this is still subjective and some cops will take the chance. That said, changing the corruption in the system has to start somewhere. If people at the bottom start getting taken out, people above them will start to be sucked out with them. Kind of cool how reduced sentences encourage lower level criminals to turn in the bigger bosses right? Corrupt cops are criminals too.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I can see the superficial attraction of this, but I think it overreaches. Nobody will work well if under permanent surveillance. On the other hand, why not turn it around? Have the senators wear body cameras during all fund-raisers, committee meetings, and discussions with staff, potential donors, and others.
Stephan
They're Officers of the Law after all, so it's only right and proper that everyone goes *on record* each and every time they appear within a police officer's sight, yes?
Only ... what about a guarantee that we can have free access to the (unedited !) footage in case of a dispute? It doesn't say so anywhere, so it's not guaranteed.
And what about retention times of that footage? Will footage of person X being drunk and disorderly as a teen suddenly surface when said person runs for public office fifteen years later? Or footage showing him/her in a brawl? Or footage of them being less than civil when receiving a traffic citation? Or answering the door at 11 PM after a complaint about noise? Or kissing someone outside a disco? And err might their religious beliefs, political affiliation, race, ZIP code, or sexual inclination perhaps affect the probability of that happening?
And what's to stop police officers from automatically evaluating the tapes afterwards record everyone's faces, ID everyone in sight, and store contact reports on every single member of the public they meet? It's a logical next step, right? And it's bound to please Homeland Security into the bargain. So how would you like it if police departments everywhere could save a bundle by getting federal subsidies on body camera's in exchange for footage and contact reports?
And what about members of the public? Doesn't this mean they're at liberty to film each and every encounter involving a police officer too, e..g. wearing Google Glass'es? Think police departments will be happy about that? And what about wearing Google Glass all the time when you go outside? There's bound to be interest in all that footage from someone ... so you can perhaps make it pay for itself.
Secondly ... what about sound? Supposing the officer (or member of the public) said something really, really offensive that the camera didn't catch. And then you pound on the footage of what ensues. Nice way to introduce bias, no?
Thirdly ... how will police officers like it when they're on the monitor every minute of their shift? It's great when you want to find cause to fire someone and are looking for a suitable pretext. Just have someone sift through all the footage of a month, find the one or two instances said person goofs off, and take a "principled stance" condemning those particular instances and you're done.
All reasonable and obvious considerations I'd like to see addressed before I'd start "liking" a gizmo like this.
Isn't that socialism? Or communism? Anyways, that's a wimpy European idea. Proper American heros are more Wyatt Earp, Dirty Harry and Jack Bauer. Civil rights are as quaint as the Geneva Convention. If you're a law-abiding citizen, why would you walk outside your gated community? Or inside after dark? Can't you afford a car? Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius!
Stephan
It authorizes the taxation, not using the funds to strongarm states into enacting laws the the federal government are not empowered to.
Hence the use of the words "backdoor" and "subversion". The 10th clearly lays out the intent for the distribution of powers, the 16th allows the collection of funds, the intent apparently being for the *running* of the federal government.
What if we require all Senators (heck, all Congress-critters) to wear cameras? Now that would be fascinating to watch.
Am I the only one worried by the fact that I'm not perfect? That is, the more cameras we have, the more likely someone will have a recording of us doing something that, though maybe not illegal, might be damaging to our reputation. As much as I like the idea of police having record of altercations, what happens when I do make a mistake and someone recorded it? There are so many rules and laws, that if a person is recorded constantly, their imperfections (real or perceived) can be recorded and then selectively used against them.
Forget Federal funding, this needs to be Federal law , plain and simple. As in, no officer testimony or evidence gathered or submitted without corresponding and complete video+audio evidence shall be admissible in a court of law, absent other strong, irrefutable and corroborating testimony or evidence originating from a non-police/non-governmental source. After all, anybody who took a basic logic or philosophy class should know that the burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the accused, and anyone who has been paying attention should know that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that police officers are somehow more honest than everyone else, or incapable of lying simply because they took some classes, swore and oath, and had a shiny piece of metal pinned on them: they are caught lying in and out of court ALL the time, on a daily basis, so why should their word be considered more reliable than anyone else's?
Frankly, the behavior of the police has been so questionable lately that there's no reason for anyone - especially otherwise honest judges - to take them at their word, especially when they're the ones completely in control of the entire evidence-gathering process, and thus have every opportunity to rig it in their favor.
There's just no excuse for officers NOT to be wearing cameras (particularly cell-enabled body-cameras that are constantly uploading to a remote server), much less for them to ever make an arrest or gather evidence without one running. Cost is not relevant: even if they are $1000 or $3000 each, that's still vastly cheaper than the lawsuits cities regularly pay out to as a result of police misconduct, alleged, factual, or otherwise. Cameras will help ensure officers conduct themselves professionally, knowing their behavior is being recorded impartially and will be subject to review, while simultaneously reducing false claims and ensuring that when such claims are made there is sufficient evidence to disprove them.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
Ability to own a handgun is something that arguably should not vary from one state to another. (If you take the "militia" thing seriously, and figure the Second only applies to military arms, then it doesn't cover handguns, but does cover machine guns and anti-tank weapons.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Freaking senators appear to be the most agregous violators of laws ethics, glad handing, bribe taking, special interest mongering people.
THEY need the cameras and we need to hear the back room deals and sweatheart desks.
Why can't you let Black police deal with Black culprits?
Casteism
I happen to be very pro law enforcement and I agree with the Senator. If body cams had been in place in Ferguson I would imagine the extremes in the story of what happened would have been cleared up over night. Video from the policeman's vest would either exonerate him or convict him. No grey areas there. If I were a policeman I'd want a vest camera.
.... wish I had the funding to set up a datacenter and possibly get the government contract to warehouse all that video. With data storage density being what it is it is well within the reach of technology to store all that data.
Because cops wearing or not wearing cameras are in or affect the interstate commerce in cop cameras and cop camera accessories.
We just give up on this blatantly stupid notion of taking a small minority segment of the populace, setting them apart from that populace, arming them to the teeth, giving them vast discretionary powers and a state-sanctioned monopoly on violence, and brainwashing them to believe that they are the only force that prevents civilization from decaying into absolute anarchy and that those that aren't one of them are all potential threats and miscreants?
Because, you know.. look how well that's worked out so far....
When police are *members* of a community, engaged with the community, approachable by the community, and not *preying* on the community.. this sort of thing doesn't happen *nearly* as much. And that only happens when the police aren't militarized and conditioned to believe in the sanctity of that "thin blue line" above everything else..