- Messages
- 3,053
- Reactions
- 1,934
This is going to be a long post...so sorry in advance.
First of all, I'm prior Military Police and currently a Corrections Officer in WA. I don't affiliate myself with any political party- but if people ask I tell them I'm Libertarian (because I'm anti-Authoritarian).
It's tough being pro-LEO and anti-Police State...
Some of the arguments I've had (especially with fellow co-workers) has been with body cameras; both on Corrections and on local Police.
Personally, I am all for body cameras. I think that body cameras weed out bad cops and support good cops. I think a lot of the resistance with body cameras is the audio portion since nobody wants to have someone constantly over their shoulder going "hey, you can't call him a 'dumb*ss!" because, frankly, when dealing with dumb*sses all day (or the same one's constantly) you will end up losing your cool.
I can tell you stories of guys throwing feces, assaulting me and damaging state property then pretending an hour later like he's your buddy then throwing a tray at you and calling you every name under the sun the next hour- but I digress...
The argument against body cameras is cost. Cost and manpower to deal with the storage of video, sifting through and reviewing video during investigations and processing public disclosure requests (editing film to protect victim information, cropping and copying videos for distribution) with Public Disclosure requests being the big one (since many people do public disclosure requests just to sue the state).
However, looking at it from a fiscal standpoint- let's look at Ferguson, Missouri. Now I realize this is conjecture, but couldn't Darrin Wilson's career have been salvaged if he had a body camera that could have supported his statement? Would protests not have been so violent if their narrative (the "hands up" theory) would have been debunked from the get-go?
The cost of the Ferguson protests has been enormous...for security alone (National Guard activation, private security contracts, added police activation) cost the state of Missouri a whopping $12.5 million. That is excluding property damages done by the actual riots. Property damage estimates are still being counted as protestors seem to be re-igniting over even the most justified of shootings (even with video to support). <broken link removed> is the most comprehensive list of property damages I could find (even showing before and after photos).
Now it could be argued that much of Ferguson's protests could have been avoided if the Police Department would have sent out a summarized press release of the incident and Darrin Wilson's injuries before the protests (the media is going to be fed, even if you don't feed it) rather than simply stating "it's under investigation, no questions" and leave the narrative to the imagination (which was later filled by lies, guesses and racial banter). It could also be argued that Ferguson probably wouldn't even be burning if race baiters like Al Sharpton shut their mouths before all the facts came to light...but I digress again.
Although I used Ferguson as an example, the point of this thread is to discuss whether body cameras on public servants is a good thing when compared to the cons (cost, manpower, lawsuits if FOI/Public Disclosure requests aren't fulfilled within a "timely" manor).
*Does it do more good than harm to have body cameras on our public servants?
*What are your thoughts on making body cameras mandatory?
*Should the Federal Government help with the costs, storage and/or requests of information for every agency?
Discuss...
First of all, I'm prior Military Police and currently a Corrections Officer in WA. I don't affiliate myself with any political party- but if people ask I tell them I'm Libertarian (because I'm anti-Authoritarian).
It's tough being pro-LEO and anti-Police State...
Some of the arguments I've had (especially with fellow co-workers) has been with body cameras; both on Corrections and on local Police.
Personally, I am all for body cameras. I think that body cameras weed out bad cops and support good cops. I think a lot of the resistance with body cameras is the audio portion since nobody wants to have someone constantly over their shoulder going "hey, you can't call him a 'dumb*ss!" because, frankly, when dealing with dumb*sses all day (or the same one's constantly) you will end up losing your cool.
I can tell you stories of guys throwing feces, assaulting me and damaging state property then pretending an hour later like he's your buddy then throwing a tray at you and calling you every name under the sun the next hour- but I digress...
The argument against body cameras is cost. Cost and manpower to deal with the storage of video, sifting through and reviewing video during investigations and processing public disclosure requests (editing film to protect victim information, cropping and copying videos for distribution) with Public Disclosure requests being the big one (since many people do public disclosure requests just to sue the state).
However, looking at it from a fiscal standpoint- let's look at Ferguson, Missouri. Now I realize this is conjecture, but couldn't Darrin Wilson's career have been salvaged if he had a body camera that could have supported his statement? Would protests not have been so violent if their narrative (the "hands up" theory) would have been debunked from the get-go?
The cost of the Ferguson protests has been enormous...for security alone (National Guard activation, private security contracts, added police activation) cost the state of Missouri a whopping $12.5 million. That is excluding property damages done by the actual riots. Property damage estimates are still being counted as protestors seem to be re-igniting over even the most justified of shootings (even with video to support). <broken link removed> is the most comprehensive list of property damages I could find (even showing before and after photos).
Now it could be argued that much of Ferguson's protests could have been avoided if the Police Department would have sent out a summarized press release of the incident and Darrin Wilson's injuries before the protests (the media is going to be fed, even if you don't feed it) rather than simply stating "it's under investigation, no questions" and leave the narrative to the imagination (which was later filled by lies, guesses and racial banter). It could also be argued that Ferguson probably wouldn't even be burning if race baiters like Al Sharpton shut their mouths before all the facts came to light...but I digress again.
Although I used Ferguson as an example, the point of this thread is to discuss whether body cameras on public servants is a good thing when compared to the cons (cost, manpower, lawsuits if FOI/Public Disclosure requests aren't fulfilled within a "timely" manor).
*Does it do more good than harm to have body cameras on our public servants?
*What are your thoughts on making body cameras mandatory?
*Should the Federal Government help with the costs, storage and/or requests of information for every agency?
Discuss...
Last Edited: