Why body cameras should be mandatory for all Officers.

[Hueco]

Not coming at you for saying this, we all have heard it time and time again.

The reality is, we're rich as bubblegum. There is nothing we can't fund, if it's a priority to us and we yell loud enough that our elected "representatives" hear us... they can fund it.

I think a big part of the problem has generally been the culture at the top of not wanting to deal with the reality that you have some bad apples that need to go, and you just might loose a few of the guys you like because of it.

If it's important, we have the money... don't let anyone ever say otherwise.

Nah, all the money got used up buying the department an armored personnel carrier, remember?

 

[BrentN]

So, these comments are interesting. Anybody read the article by the Oregonian where Hardesty explains WHY Portland police are not ALLOWED to wear cameras? In case you missed it..

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou... City Council priorities for policing reforms

Especially useful read for those of you talking about "people at the top not wanting to get rid of bad apples".

 

[BrentN]

Or just google "hardesty the oregonian police body cameras".

 

[No_Regerts]

So, these comments are interesting. Anybody read the article by the Oregonian where Hardesty explains WHY Portland police are not ALLOWED to wear cameras? In case you missed it..

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou... City Council priorities for policing reforms

Especially useful read for those of you talking about "people at the top not wanting to get rid of bad apples".

Some cities have instituted policy that the footage can only be used to review an officer's actions, and not used as evidence against the suspect. Mainly because they've found that the cameras don't change what happens or how often. However, they aren't good for keeping up the narrative.

 

[oldcorpgunny]

I swear I heard an officer rack the slide of a handgun. Possibly the one with the body cam. Seems like a bad idea to not have a round chambered moments before the guy attacked another officer.

The police don't have to "rack a slide." Their sidearms are already locked and loaded before getting in the car.

 

[oldcorpgunny]

Not coming at you for saying this, we all have heard it time and time again.

The reality is, we're rich as bubblegum. There is nothing we can't fund, if it's a priority to us and we yell loud enough that our elected "representatives" hear us... they can fund it.

I think a big part of the problem has generally been the culture at the top of not wanting to deal with the reality that you have some bad apples that need to go, and you just might loose a few of the guys you like because of it.

If it's important, we have the money... don't let anyone ever say otherwise.

I think that you are spot on in your assessment.

 

[HaveGun]

The police don't have to "rack a slide." Their sidearms are already locked and loaded before getting in the car.

Listen carefully to the sound at the :52 second mark and tell me what that sound is if it's not the sound of a slide being manipulated.

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

Listen carefully to the sound at the :52 second mark and tell me what that sound is if it's not the sound of a slide being manipulated.

Seems like it was probably an attempt to correct a weapon malfunction. It's hard to say for sure but it sounds like he had a misfire and then tried to clear it (twice?) but by then the other officer was already engaging the perp.

 

[bbbass]

@

Bbbas, are you still involved with the business? Any thoughts on private use and/or recommended devices?

Sorry madladchad, I've been retired for 8yrs and haven't kept up on current gadgets.

But I think, from reading in prev/other threads, that some of the members will know and might chime in for you.

 

[bbbass]

Some cities have instituted policy that the footage can only be used to review an officer's actions, and not used as evidence against the suspect. Mainly because they've found that the cameras don't change what happens or how often. However, they aren't good for keeping up the narrative.

"Some" cities??? Let me guess who runs those cities!!!

I didn't know this. It's sad. But since they don't want video evidence, why not just stop arresting law breakers, or let criminals go free.... wait, they are already doing that!

 

[bbbass]

City Commissioner and police-accountability advocate Jo Ann Hardesty is the council's strongest opponent to the cameras. Hardesty's raised concerns that body camera footage will simply help officers get their story straight after using force against a member of the public.

Yeah, you can't trust your own eyes and ears!!! And you certainly can't trust The Blue....

Apparently, Portland Police Bureau has had millions allocated for cameras since a federal judge ruled it in 2014 for "police accountability". But a study done by George Mason University shows they don't make a difference in "accountability", meaning they don't have an "accountability" problem, so the City won't release the funding. They thought it would be a tool against cops, but it turned out to be a tool for evidence gathering so they don't want it!!!

 

[bbbass]

So, "we" have lots of money???

Who's this "we" Batman???

On a national basis, "we" have been broke since "we" went off the Gold Standard. "We" are running a debt economy that many people believe will come to a bad end.

But if "we" can afford "free" healthcare for all, "free" college, "free" meals/food, "free" housing, "free" utilities, "free" phones, "free" stimulus checks, "free" income, replace all natural gas heated buildings, replace gas-fired energy plants with expensive solar and wind, replace gas cars with electric and build "free" charging stations, replace airplanes with... and on and on, then yeah, on a national basis "we" got money flowing from Saudi Arabia and China, so the only problem is getting it down to small departments.

 

[Lasers]

It's Saturday, so I'm trying to keep my research and reference time spent to a minimum.

On a policy level, you can see our elected representatives have trillions they are happy to transfer to any company that promises to trickle some down to us, and, of course, make a sizable donation to the reelection of campaign.

We've done the math, IF it was important, we could, for example, take a .0001% cut to the defense budget and cover it (didn't research the real figure, but you get the idea)

They spend our money, knowing that we really don't have the ability to hold anyone really accountable.

I'd reason there are plenty of line items a layman like us could justify cutting to put in such a system...

It's simply not a priority

 

[bbbass]

It's Saturday, so I'm trying to keep my research and reference time spent to a minimum.

On a policy level, you can see our elected representatives have trillions they are happy to transfer to any company that promises to trickle some down to us, and, of course, make a sizable donation to the reelection of campaign.

We've done the math, IF it was important, we could, for example, take a .0001% cut to the defense budget and cover it (didn't research the real figure, but you get the idea)

They spend our money, knowing that we really don't have the ability to hold anyone really accountable.

I'd reason there are plenty of line items a layman like us could justify cutting to put in such a system...

It's simply not a priority

The federal govt collected $3.5trillion in 2019, and spent all that and more!!! The 2020 Stimulus alone was $2.2trillion. And "they" want to do it again. Only problem is that 2.2T is not big enough anymore. The Lincoln Center needs more $$$ you know. "Elected Representatives" don't HAVE trillions!!! What they HAVE is the power to tax and spend. And apparently, to borrow against the future of all citizens.

Again, who is this "we"??? There is no "we" that decides the budget.

Why is it always the military budget that is to be cut??? Hmmmm? IMO if "we" were going to make cuts, it should come out of the pockets of people that don't contribute, have never contributed. I believe a robust Defense Dept is what keeps the nation safe. IMO it should always be fully funded... as long as "they" are not spending $1000 for a hammer and the like.

If we want to cut, which always winds up that only the critical budget items are "threatened" with cuts, let's get a line item budget measure passed. Hmmm? When do you think that will happen???

So, what is the mechanism for federal tax revenue to be spent on body cams in local PDs? Would Congress have to pass a bill? Would it be grant money? Can the federal govt MANDATE that local PDs and SOs spend the money on and then use body cams? Would that not be unconstitutional (as if it matters anymore)? Would the Pres have to threaten to withhold federal funding if local govt didn't comply? In a time when "they" are letting crooks walk, is any of that kind of mess worth it? Video evidence against a few more crooks that they are going to let go anyway...

I agree it's not a priority. If Hardesty is an example, it will never happen.

 

[Buster1]

Not that they should have let him get anywhere near her but, any good vest will defeat a knife like that. It is VERY hard to get a knife to go into a vest. The thing they are most ineffective on are things like an ice pick. This is why so many who work in a prison wear stab vests. The weapons made in prison are often close to ice pick like. Think of how most rounds to defeat a vest are made by pushing a very small diameter round very fast. Its the same thing with a blade. To get through the best ones are small, sharp, and gone at the vest strait on.

I want some of whatever you're smoking. You realize "stab vests" and body armor designed to hopefully stop bullets (in no way "bulletproof") are manufactured completely different and for different purposes, right?

 

[EHJ]

I want some of whatever you're smoking. You realize "stab vests" and body armor designed to hopefully stop bullets (in no way "bulletproof") are manufactured completely different and for different purposes, right?

Not anymore...

Concealable FRAS® - Flexible Rifle Armor

The Concealable FRAS™ flexible rifle armor provides full front, rear, and side protective coverage. It is a protective and lightweight concealable body armor.

safelifedefense.com

 

[HA556]

Oh, you're going to see (and hear) all the, "you could have shot him in the leg" crowd come out of the woodwork,

Yep, they should have shot him in the leg, chest, head and anywhere else!

 

[Buster1]

Not anymore...

Concealable FRAS® - Flexible Rifle Armor

The Concealable FRAS™ flexible rifle armor provides full front, rear, and side protective coverage. It is a protective and lightweight concealable body armor.

safelifedefense.com

Where does that say anything about being stab resistant?

 

[Alexx1401]

I want some of whatever you're smoking. You realize "stab vests" and body armor designed to hopefully stop bullets (in no way "bulletproof") are manufactured completely different and for different purposes, right?

Sigh, well when you finish smoking I am sure you can find the info but I doubt it would do any good. Soft body armor is VERY hard to get a knife like this scum was using through. If you ever get to actually handle some you can play with, such as an old vest you can find this out for yourself. The knife does not just go through soft armor. It "can" be defeated by knives but unless the knife is of small diameter, like an ice pick, its not easy to do.
Stab vests, normally sold for prisons are made to defeat the weapons found in prisons. Most of what the prisoners manage to make into weapons tend to be very small diameter. In the real world you seldom see a knife like this scum had in a prison.
You never read me calling body armor bullet proof. Again you have been watching too much TV. There are some rounds made with the idea of defeating soft armor. They are small rounds sent at very high speed. A IIA soft vest can often be defeated by a .22 WMR round fired from a long gun. This same vest is rated to stop a .45 and even a .357. Guess why the .22 is harder to stop?
Now given your response I am sure these facts are wasted on you but others may find some good info here. <shrug>

 

[HA556]

Where does that say anything about being stab resistant?

If I'm following you correctly, it says it right there in the Features.


FEATURES

• TRULY FLEXIBLE RIFLE ARMOR: Conforms and Feels like Soft Armor
• Rated For .223/5.56 and 7.62×39
  • Blunt Force Protection: Well within NIJ .07 limits of 44mm
• Handgun, Shotgun, Strike, Slash, Stab & Taser Resistant
  • Spike Rating: NIJ Level 3 up to 65 Joules of Force
• 360° Wrap Around Protection: Full Front, Rear and Side Coverage
• Extreme Comfort: Easy to Wear for 12+ Hours
• Unmatched by ANYTHING on the Market
• Cooling Mesh Liner
• 10 Point Adjustable with 4 Comfort Straps
• 2 Hidden Pockets for Additional Rifle Plates
• Water Resistant Polyester Carrier
• 30 Day Fit and Satisfaction Guarantee
• 5 Year Warranty and Incident Guarantee
• PAYMENT PLAN: No Interest and No Credit Check through Quadpay