This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, use the Reprints tool at the top of any article or order a reprint of this article now.
Body cameras would keep cops and the public honest
December 2, 2014 by LANE FILLER /
If one thing could improve the tenor of the debate over events in Ferguson, Missouri, it would be having some idea of what actually happened. So yeah, I support body cameras for cops.
President Barack Obama has proposed federal funding for 50,000 cameras. It's a start. The units are generally about three inches long, clip to uniforms, and transmit video for storage via the Internet, usually while recharging.
In Rialto, California, population 102,000, body cameras were rolled out in 2012. In the following 12 months, complaints against officers declined 88 percent and use-of-force incidents by officers decreased almost 60 percent.
Maybe cops behaved better. Maybe civilians behaved better. Maybe the fact that the recording existed prevented baseless complaints. I don't much care why the improvement happened. I just think police-civilian interaction improves when it's recorded.
Michael Brown, black and 18, was repeatedly and fatally shot by police Officer Darren Wilson, white and 28, in August. And we know that shortly before being shot by Wilson, Brown stole cigars and shoved a store clerk. Everything else, though, is open to debate because the many witnesses disagree. They disagree with each other, and in many cases their testimony disagrees with itself, having changed over time.
The fiercest arguing is created by a lack of information combined with prejudices on both sides, which are not quite the same as deep hatreds. The difference is important.
You can have a bias against cops, but see a video of an enraged and scary man charging a police officer and say, "While I have no love for the man in blue, I'd have shot that guy a bunch of times, too. He was coming strong, with scary and murderous intent."
You also can have a bias against young black men but see a video of a white cop repeatedly shooting an unarmed young black man whose arms were up in a gesture of surrender and say, "While I have no love for a thug who steals cigars or messes with clerks, no way did the cop need to keep shooting at him. The kid should probably be in jail, but he shouldn't be dead."
I believe we are a nation of people who often have certain prejudices. We tend to side with people who look like us, live like us, talk like us, earn like us and are as old as us. I don't believe we are a people consumed by fierce hatreds. There are a few infected with such poison, but not many.
No information will sway those few true haters. The cop haters will always believe the cops are wrong, and the black haters will always believe blacks are wrong, but mostly nobody cares what such people think . . . because we know they don't really think at all.
To me, cop cams aren't controversial. The mayor of Boston says his officers don't need them, calling the idea "a distraction." Earlier this year, a police union in Miami fought a plan to use the cameras, arguing they would "distract officers from their duties, and hamper their ability to act and react in dangerous situations." Some argue the cameras invade privacy, but the American Civil Liberties Union is now in favor.
Officers have no right to privacy on duty. And the civilians they come in contact with, mostly in public, don't either.
Equipping 700,000 officers in the United States with body cameras could be done for around $1 billion, and federal funding isn't necessarily needed. Police departments usually have forfeiture funds. This is a perfect example of how best to deploy such money.
Doing so would limit confrontations between officers and civilians, which means fewer insurance payouts for departments. Even when those confrontations are not prevented, the cameras can give us information, which is more useful than bias in deciding who is right and who is wrong.
Lane Filler is a member of the Newsday editorial board.
But what about the ongoing cost of them? Replacement when they get broke?
This is not a once and done price. It will be a huge drain on the police dept. funds.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
You gotta give Obama kudos for his deep commitment to Big Brother and the Eye in the Sky type Govt control of citizens.
What an interesting point of view you have.
I suspect that most of the people have no problem with cameras being all over the place outside in public.
And there's no reason that I've seen or read why the police shouldn't have cameras. A video is an unimpeachable witness when something goes sideways.
I wish there's been an intersection camera when I was hit broadside by a driver who ran a red light without slowing down.
I'm glad there was a camera when a similar collision happened right in front of me.
The only people I've heard of who have a legitimate reason to prevent police cameras from seeing what they're doing, are people who are breaking the law.
And of course there are people who just HATE OBAMA and anything he's in favor of, JUST BECAUSE he's in favor of it.
The "Big Brother" from the book 1984was surveiling people inside their homes, 24/7 365. And anyone who objected would be taken away.
This is not the same.
By the way, there are ALREADY cameras all over the place outside. Most of them are in the hands of ordinary people.
The fact that no one came forward with videos of the police shooting of Michael Brown, was probably because the videos would have show that the thug WAS attacking the cop.
What part of your privacy do you think will be violated if cops wear body cameras?
__________________
The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.
I'm curious about the cost of body cameras vs the cost of some of the military equipment (tanks and such) being bought up by many police stations. I wonder if they could simply allocate the money differently to afford these body cams.
You gotta give Obama kudos for his deep commitment to Big Brother and the Eye in the Sky type Govt control of citizens.
What an interesting point of view you have.
I suspect that most of the people have no problem with cameras being all over the place outside in public.
And there's no reason that I've seen or read why the police shouldn't have cameras. A video is an unimpeachable witness when something goes sideways.
I wish there's been an intersection camera when I was hit broadside by a driver who ran a red light without slowing down.
I'm glad there was a camera when a similar collision happened right in front of me.
The only people I've heard of who have a legitimate reason to prevent police cameras from seeing what they're doing, are people who are breaking the law.
And of course there are people who just HATE OBAMA and anything he's in favor of, JUST BECAUSE he's in favor of it.
The "Big Brother" from the book 1984was surveiling people inside their homes, 24/7 365. And anyone who objected would be taken away.
This is not the same.
By the way, there are ALREADY cameras all over the place outside. Most of them are in the hands of ordinary people.
The fact that no one came forward with videos of the police shooting of Michael Brown, was probably because the videos would have show that the thug WAS attacking the cop.
What part of your privacy do you think will be violated if cops wear body cameras?
Cameras catch a lot of things. Things in the periphery. And, cops can then film people who are NOT engaged in committing crimes. I think it is hilarious how those of you on the LEFT are perfectly happy turning over all manner of liberties to the authorities.
I'm curious about the cost of body cameras vs the cost of some of the military equipment (tanks and such) being bought up by many police stations. I wonder if they could simply allocate the money differently to afford these body cams.
In some places the cameras are being paid for by "forfeiture funds", cash and property taken from criminals, including drunk drivers, whose cars are confiscated, and drug dealers whose cars and houses are confiscated then sold at auction.
I'm not aware of tanks and such being PURCHASED by local police. I thought that was used military equipment deemed "surplus" by the federal government.
__________________
The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.
You gotta give Obama kudos for his deep commitment to Big Brother and the Eye in the Sky type Govt control of citizens.
What an interesting point of view you have.
I suspect that most of the people have no problem with cameras being all over the place outside in public.
And there's no reason that I've seen or read why the police shouldn't have cameras. A video is an unimpeachable witness when something goes sideways.
I wish there's been an intersection camera when I was hit broadside by a driver who ran a red light without slowing down.
I'm glad there was a camera when a similar collision happened right in front of me.
The only people I've heard of who have a legitimate reason to prevent police cameras from seeing what they're doing, are people who are breaking the law.
And of course there are people who just HATE OBAMA and anything he's in favor of, JUST BECAUSE he's in favor of it.
The "Big Brother" from the book 1984was surveiling people inside their homes, 24/7 365. And anyone who objected would be taken away.
This is not the same.
By the way, there are ALREADY cameras all over the place outside. Most of them are in the hands of ordinary people.
The fact that no one came forward with videos of the police shooting of Michael Brown, was probably because the videos would have show that the thug WAS attacking the cop.
What part of your privacy do you think will be violated if cops wear body cameras?
Cameras catch a lot of things. Things in the periphery. And, cops can then film people who are NOT engaged in committing crimes. I think it is hilarious how those of you on the LEFT are perfectly happy turning over all manner of liberties to the authorities.
My dash cam records a LOT of non-criminal activity. A lot of people use their cell phone cameras to record a lot of non-criminal activity. Just take a look at You Tube for MILLIONS of examples.
__________________
The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.
It doesn't bother anyone to lose a right until they realize it is gone.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
Yes, but you aren't an authoritative body who can use that in a way to squash someone. Yes, you can blackmail, but the deck is stacked against citizens. The house always wins. But, I bet you were going Apeschit over Bush and the Patriot Act.
Think about this. You are having a domestic issue, say one of your kids is being unruly and you are afraid, or your spouse becomes violent. You call the police to have them removed from the house or at least calm down the situation. Your neighbor, who is a gossip, is curious as to what went on and files for the film under the right to know act. Because that is what will happen.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
Think about this. You are having a domestic issue, say one of your kids is being unruly and you are afraid, or your spouse becomes violent. You call the police to have them removed from the house or at least calm down the situation. Your neighbor, who is a gossip, is curious as to what went on and files for the film under the right to know act. Because that is what will happen.
It's still worth if it stops all the he said she said. If we all know the cops have cameras then don't get caught on camera doing what you don't want the neighbor to know about. There are already so many cameras out there that most people don't even think about. Traffic cameras, atm's, convenience stores, banks, most large businesses. If you're doing something stupid these days there's probably a camera recording it already...lol
__________________
“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.” ― Julia Child ―
Think about this. You are having a domestic issue, say one of your kids is being unruly and you are afraid, or your spouse becomes violent. You call the police to have them removed from the house or at least calm down the situation. Your neighbor, who is a gossip, is curious as to what went on and files for the film under the right to know act. Because that is what will happen.
It's still worth if it stops all the he said she said. If we all know the cops have cameras then don't get caught on camera doing what you don't want the neighbor to know about. There are already so many cameras out there that most people don't even think about. Traffic cameras, atm's, convenience stores, banks, most large businesses. If you're doing something stupid these days there's probably a camera recording it already...lol
Yep, every week our PD posts photos looking to have criminals identified. The photos come from store security cameras and are usually very clear. Most criminals are identified in less than an hour. You would think they would smarten up by now.