LogFAQs > #887333925

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I understand opposition to body cams. After all, from a mere ever day standpoint, I'd understand not wanting to have every moment of your on the clock activities catalogued in such a fashion. Hell, I'm posting from work right now.

That being said, the police are in a position of authority and power that needs oversight, and we've seen time and time again of police word being taken for law in the court of law and of officers banding together to protect their own. For a wrongfully or mistakenly accused citizen, or someone beaten by the police, video recordings are often their only source of proof in their defense, and as such body cams should be a requirement going forward.

With that in mind, I do believe that these body cams should be codified with specific rules protecting officers, i.e. - they can't be used for labor or disciplinary disputes for minor offenses or as a tracker for how hard officers should be working. But in circumstances where force was used, there should be independent commissions with the legal authority to investigate and release the footage to the public while also being sworn to the privacy of matters not related to the event, i.e. - a police officer being lazy or slacking off a few hours prior.

Police accountability is enforced while protecting the simple fact that officers can't be giving it their all for the duration of the shift is respected.
---

The poster formerly known as Kakarot181: July 2, 2002 - March 14, 2012.
Irregardless, for all intensive purposes, I could care less.