Current Events > Body cams are "unfair to officers" according to the police union...

(+) Yeah! (+)

DifferentialEquation posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

I wouldn't say they're unfair, but they're not needed and a waste of money. If I want to know the details of what transpired, then I'll look at the officer's written statements instead of trying to make a judgement based off of potentially shaky/grain and ultimately unreliable video footage.

But what's the corroboration?

Police officers take oaths to protect and serve their community. That's all the corroboration I need for their testimonies.

I dont even want to know what your life is like irl if this is the gimmick youve chosen online.
---

It's telling that the only people against them here are known contrarians who likely don't believe half the bullshit they spew and are just looking to rile people up.

I can't fathom how people can think that something that will help EVERY party involved is a bad thing. Shouldn't we as a society want more accountability and truth when it comes to legal matters?
---

I think it's unfair that they can murder people and get rewarded with paid vacations, but that's just me.
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

It's telling that the only people against them here are known contrarians who likely don't believe half the bullshit they spew and are just looking to rile people up.

I can't fathom how people can think that something that will help EVERY party involved is a bad thing. Shouldn't we as a society want more accountability and truth when it comes to legal matters?

But it doesn't help as much as you think it does. When you compare the costs and how helpful the cams are, it really isn't that worth it. The biggest issues are power for the camera, storage for the videos, and reliability of the cameras.
---

The Admiral posted...

I'm completely in favor of bodycams. Would have ended up shattering the narrative of BLM in every police shooting they rioted over.

Only in your racist fantasies
---

posted...

But it doesn't help as much as you think it does. When you compare the costs and how helpful the cams are, it really isn't that worth it. The biggest issues are power for the camera, storage for the videos, and reliability of the cameras.

You know what, honestly I don't care about the cost. With the tension how it is and the relative drastic seriousness of the issues, the idea that "Well it's not cost efficient so....oh well" is not, to me, a valid argument. Some things should be bigger than money, and I'd generally say justice for BOTH sides in these cases should qualify. Likewise the other issues you mentioned are things that could be resolved with time and attention paid to the issue rather than just dumping the idea outright.

I don't know, there's ways to relieve the tension in a lot of these cases with this and in general it seems like people on both sides don't actually want to do anything about it because it'd destroy the narrative they've created.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Police officers take oaths to protect and serve their community. That's all the corroboration I need for their testimonies.

LOL. No one feed the troll
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

I wouldn't say they're unfair, but they're not needed and a waste of money. If I want to know the details of what transpired, then I'll look at the officer's written statements instead of trying to make a judgement based off of potentially shaky/grain and ultimately unreliable video footage.

But what's the corroboration?

Police officers take oaths to protect and serve their community. That's all the corroboration I need for their testimonies.

You're fucking kidding, right?

You're literally giving cops carte blanche to lie.
---

Guide posted...

All it does is fill your youtube and social media feeds so you can judge people.

This is secretly a very important rage. Public outcry is fickle, but it can move mountains.

But when all the facts come out, two cops end up dead because YouTube shaky cam didn't show the perp grabbing for his gun.
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

It's telling that the only people against them here are known contrarians who likely don't believe half the bullshit they spew and are just looking to rile people up.

I think it's telling that the only people who are pro them can't actually argue how they are a good thing and just ignore the reasons why it is a terrible idea.

Says it all right there.

I can't fathom how people can think that something that will help EVERY party involved is a bad thing.

But if you support Mandatory body cams that's exactly what you're doing.

It costs money
Hurts people
Gains nothing.

Not having mandatory body cams is something that helps every party involved and you angrily oppose it without logic or reason.

Shouldn't we as a society want more accountability and truth when it comes to legal matters?

Body cam footage is absolutely negliable when it comes to legal matters.

You're confusing your social media feed with a courtroom.
---

mario2000 posted...

I think it's unfair that they can murder people and get rewarded with paid vacations, but that's just me.

Literally not murder.
---

darkjedilink posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

I wouldn't say they're unfair, but they're not needed and a waste of money. If I want to know the details of what transpired, then I'll look at the officer's written statements instead of trying to make a judgement based off of potentially shaky/grain and ultimately unreliable video footage.

But what's the corroboration?

Police officers take oaths to protect and serve their community. That's all the corroboration I need for their testimonies.

You're fucking kidding, right?

You're literally giving cops carte blanche to lie.

Except a thing called evidence exists.

If a cop shot or attacked someone there would be evidence to show what happened. If the evidence goes against the testimony then he is fucked, if it supports the testimony he's in the black.

You're acting like the only thing stopping a cop from running into the street and mowing down children with an AK-47 is shakey bodycam footage. That's absolute pure fantasy.

There has never ever been an affect of note in court caused by bodycam footage. At best it just supports existing evidence. Nothing more.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I think it's telling that the only people who are pro them can't actually argue how they are a good thing and just ignore the reasons why it is a terrible idea.

Says it all right there.

I explained fairly clearly why I think it's a good thing. It will remove a lot of the doubt in regards to cases(you'll always have doubt regardless, that's human nature) and it should, in theory anyway, ease tensions by providing something to both sides.

UnfairRepresent posted...

But if you support Mandatory body cams that's exactly what you're doing.

It costs money
Hurts people
Gains nothing.

Not having mandatory body cams is something that helps every party involved and you angrily oppose it without logic or reason.

I don't care how much it costs, there's things in life that are more important than money. Your sources on "people will be more violent" actually claim they MAY be more violent, and that the evidence is still unclear on if that's the case. I don't give a shit if you disagree with my reasoning, but it's still my rationale and belief for it.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Body cam footage is absolutely negliable when it comes to legal matters.

You're confusing your social media feed with a courtroom.

You seem to think I want to sit and watch videos of potential shootings and deaths to get outraged over, when that's not the case at all. What kind of psychopath would WANT to watch that shit? And there's been plenty of things throughout history, including shit like DNA testing, that was negligible in court rooms. But as a society we progress and recognize the technological advances we have and move forward instead of staying put and saying "NOPE EVERYTHING'S GOOD!" like you seemingly want to do.
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

I explained fairly clearly why I think it's a good thing. It will remove a lot of the doubt in regards to cases

There is absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever and existing evidence to the contrary. Bodycams and Hubcams aren't new, they've been around for many many years and have never had an effect in court.

The only effet they have had is on social media and Youtube, where they are often either edited or just not the whole story designed intentionally to rile people up. Which is the literal opposite of removing doubt.

You're fighting against your own point wholeheartedly.

The Great Muta 22 posted...

I don't care how much it costs,

Then you pay for it instead of demanding that I do.

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Your sources on "people will be more violent" actually claim they MAY be more violent,

Yes because several countries put a huge amount of research into it and the result was more violence.

It also "May" result in the second coming of Jesus. But in this world we go by reality, not by your emotions. And the reality is all existing evidence points towards bodycams doing nothing but hurting people at great cost for no gain.

You "Feeling" like it's a good idea anyway is just childish.

The Great Muta 22 posted...

You seem to think I want to sit and watch videos of potential shootings and deaths to get outraged over,

That's the only thing mandatory body cam footage will effect. IF you don't do that then there is no reason to demand it.

The Great Muta 22 posted...

But as a society we progress and recognize the technological advances we have and move forward instead of staying put and saying "NOPE EVERYTHING'S GOOD!" like you seemingly want to do

Strawman. No one is saying "Everything's good" they're saying "It's stupid to spend huge amounts of money to do something that pragmatically will accomplish nothing but hurt a lot of good people and increase violence just because you feel like that's a good idea."

Your argument is inane. Your car might need maintenance but that doesn't mean you slicing the tyres with a chainsaw (that you bought with my money) is a good idea just because "WEll the car had flaws and I thought it would be fun, therefore it's a good idea."

You need to think before you act. Not what you WANT to be true, look at what ACTUALLY is true.

When that mugger runs up to you with a sharp knife no amount of wanting him to be a friendly dog coming for a cuddle will make it so.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

I wouldn't say they're unfair, but they're not needed and a waste of money. If I want to know the details of what transpired, then I'll look at the officer's written statements instead of trying to make a judgement based off of potentially shaky/grain and ultimately unreliable video footage.

But what's the corroboration?

Police officers take oaths to protect and serve their community. That's all the corroboration I need for their testimonies.

HAHAHAHA

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/another-baltimore-police-body-cam-video-shows-officers-plant-drugs-n789396

Go sit down somewhere and let the adults talk
---

BeantownHero posted...

HAHAHAHA

Go sit down somewhere and let the adults talk

That's not how adults talk...
---

It is a defiant position as a part of collective bargaining I expect as opposed to any moral objection to it.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

I wouldn't say they're unfair, but they're not needed and a waste of money. If I want to know the details of what transpired, then I'll look at the officer's written statements instead of trying to make a judgement based off of potentially shaky/grain and ultimately unreliable video footage.

But what's the corroboration?

Police officers take oaths to protect and serve their community. That's all the corroboration I need for their testimonies.

You're very naive if you truly believe that.
---

Jesus christ, fucking RETAIL workers are on camera to make sure they aren't stealing money, why the fuck should cops be so butthurt about making sure they actually had reason to KILL SOMEONE
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

darkjedilink posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

I wouldn't say they're unfair, but they're not needed and a waste of money. If I want to know the details of what transpired, then I'll look at the officer's written statements instead of trying to make a judgement based off of potentially shaky/grain and ultimately unreliable video footage.

But what's the corroboration?

Police officers take oaths to protect and serve their community. That's all the corroboration I need for their testimonies.

You're fucking kidding, right?

You're literally giving cops carte blanche to lie.

Except a thing called evidence exists.

If a cop shot or attacked someone there would be evidence to show what happened. If the evidence goes against the testimony then he is fucked, if it supports the testimony he's in the black.

You're acting like the only thing stopping a cop from running into the street and mowing down children with an AK-47 is shakey bodycam footage. That's absolute pure fantasy.

There has never ever been an affect of note in court caused by bodycam footage. At best it just supports existing evidence. Nothing more.

Philando Castille says 'hi.'
---

Fam_Fam posted...

would you want a cam on you all day every day while you work?

you probably wouldn't. I can see why they wouldn't like it, but i think its the right thing to do, for obvious reasons

You realize there are tons of places where the employees are on camera all day right?
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

Jesus christ, fucking RETAIL workers are on camera to make sure they aren't stealing money, why the fuck should cops be so butthurt about making sure they actually had reason to KILL SOMEONE

Speaking of such, they usually don't work, unless it is a speeding camera. In other countries they do have CCTV everywhere, but crimes still happen in front of the cameras.
---

Twin3Turbo posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

I wouldn't say they're unfair, but they're not needed and a waste of money. If I want to know the details of what transpired, then I'll look at the officer's written statements instead of trying to make a judgement based off of potentially shaky/grain and ultimately unreliable video footage.

But what's the corroboration?

Police officers take oaths to protect and serve their community. That's all the corroboration I need for their testimonies.

lol

---

If police unions say something is bad, it's obviously good
---

Smoke944 posted...

If police unions say something is bad, it's obviously good

Pretty much the case with most unions
---

LightHawKnight posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

Jesus christ, fucking RETAIL workers are on camera to make sure they aren't stealing money, why the fuck should cops be so butthurt about making sure they actually had reason to KILL SOMEONE

Speaking of such, they usually don't work, unless it is a speeding camera. In other countries they do have CCTV everywhere, but crimes still happen in front of the cameras.

surveillance camera footage is almost always used to help catch criminals that rob / burglarize public retail shops. That's the point of the camera is that you have more evidence of what happened.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

Jesus christ, fucking RETAIL workers are on camera to make sure they aren't stealing money, why the fuck should cops be so butthurt about making sure they actually had reason to KILL SOMEONE

Speaking of such, they usually don't work, unless it is a speeding camera. In other countries they do have CCTV everywhere, but crimes still happen in front of the cameras.

surveillance camera footage is almost always used to help catch criminals that rob / burglarize public retail shops. That's the point of the camera is that you have more evidence of what happened.

So why can't that point apply to cops and bodycams? Sure, a cop may think they saw you doing something suspicious, but if a bodycam captures evidence, why not use them in the same way as they're used in retail stores?
---

accountability is like Kryptonite to those seeking immunity and autonomy.

every individual should be held accountable for his/her actions
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

Smoke944 posted...

If police unions say something is bad, it's obviously good

Pretty much the case with most unions

Public-sector ones, for sure.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

accountability is like Kryptonite to those seeking immunity and autonomy.

every individual should be held accountable for his/her actions

Unless they're a liberal or minority, of course, right?
---

M_Live posted...

I think they're the most fair option for everybody. It gives the police protection if somebody lies, and likewise for the person they're dealing with.

---

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.
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

Jesus christ, fucking RETAIL workers are on camera to make sure they aren't stealing money, why the fuck should cops be so butthurt about making sure they actually had reason to KILL SOMEONE

Speaking of such, they usually don't work, unless it is a speeding camera. In other countries they do have CCTV everywhere, but crimes still happen in front of the cameras.

surveillance camera footage is almost always used to help catch criminals that rob / burglarize public retail shops. That's the point of the camera is that you have more evidence of what happened.

So why can't that point apply to cops and bodycams? Sure, a cop may think they saw you doing something suspicious, but if a bodycam captures evidence, why not use them in the same way as they're used in retail stores?

Don't tell me. Tell UnfairRepresent or whatever flavor of the week troll is on CE today.
---

K181 posted...

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.

you ever consider that not everyone is cut out to be a cop? if you can't do the job asked of you, why have it?

I don't want a lazy heart surgeon who didn't feel like sterilizing the tools. I don't want my kids with a teacher who just makes them take movie notes. I don't want a president who doesn't know who wants to do harm to my country.
---

It's not a matter of laziness. It's a matter of practicality. Even the best cops can't be alert and focused and doing work at every moment of every shift. Having downtime, fiddling around with your phone, just sitting around waiting for a report, going in a store to grab a coffee, etc.,, etc. are all pretty much a given for police officers just in the same way that paramedics and firefighters spend a good deal of time just waiting for a call. That may also protect officers that jerk it in their car or doze off in their shift, but it's a protection in place for everyday downtime and moments of checking out to ensure that we have body cams in place for when they're ready needed.
---

K181 posted...

It's not a matter of laziness. It's a matter of practicality. Even the best cops can't be alert and focused and doing work at every moment of every shift. Having downtime, fiddling around with your phone, just sitting around waiting for a report, going in a store to grab a coffee, etc.,, etc. are all pretty much a given for police officers just in the same way that paramedics and firefighters spend a good deal of time just waiting for a call. That may also protect officers that jerk it in their car or doze off in their shift, but it's a protection in place for everyday downtime and moments of checking out to ensure that we have body cams in place for when they're ready needed.

they should have down time allotted to them then, rather than them taking it whenever they feel like it. protecting officers from themselves and accountability is why we have problems with the Blue Line.

if you give people authority over who lives and who dies, they should be fully expected to handle the responsibilities that come with it.

what's with the kiddy gloves?
---

It's not kiddie gloves. I'm fully in favor of using it as evidence when caught using excessive force or taking a bribe. But if you want police support and not just having widespread tampering with the devices, you do need to install certain protections for police officers from a labor standpoint.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

Jesus christ, fucking RETAIL workers are on camera to make sure they aren't stealing money, why the fuck should cops be so butthurt about making sure they actually had reason to KILL SOMEONE

Speaking of such, they usually don't work, unless it is a speeding camera. In other countries they do have CCTV everywhere, but crimes still happen in front of the cameras.

surveillance camera footage is almost always used to help catch criminals that rob / burglarize public retail shops. That's the point of the camera is that you have more evidence of what happened.

If they even find the person to begin with. More evidence doesn't help when the evidence doesn't tell much if anything. Specially with bodycams with the shaking camera, wrong angle and low quality, usually less useful than surveillance camera footage.

Specially when you weigh in the costs. That little benefit for the cost of buying, setting up, maintaining the cameras, storing the footage, and having someone parse through them is something we have to pay. It is rather costly for the little benefits it does give us. Until we make the cameras better, cheaper, and actually useful ways to store them and look through them, cause as of now there really isn't any, they wont be as helpful as you guys think they are.
---

I bet the cops know where trump's pee tape is
---

LightHawKnight posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

Jesus christ, fucking RETAIL workers are on camera to make sure they aren't stealing money, why the fuck should cops be so butthurt about making sure they actually had reason to KILL SOMEONE

Speaking of such, they usually don't work, unless it is a speeding camera. In other countries they do have CCTV everywhere, but crimes still happen in front of the cameras.

surveillance camera footage is almost always used to help catch criminals that rob / burglarize public retail shops. That's the point of the camera is that you have more evidence of what happened.

If they even find the person to begin with. More evidence doesn't help when the evidence doesn't tell much if anything. Specially with bodycams with the shaking camera, wrong angle and low quality, usually less useful than surveillance camera footage.

Specially when you weigh in the costs. That little benefit for the cost of buying, setting up, maintaining the cameras, storing the footage, and having someone parse through them is something we have to pay. It is rather costly for the little benefits it does give us. Until we make the cameras better, cheaper, and actually useful ways to store them and look through them, cause as of now there really isn't any, they wont be as helpful as you guys think they are.

hasn't complaints of police brutality been down ever since they got introduced?
---

Of course the police union doesn't want officer's actions to be recorded on video. They're one of the main reasons cops are so protected when it comes to their misconduct

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

Jesus christ, fucking RETAIL workers are on camera to make sure they aren't stealing money, why the fuck should cops be so butthurt about making sure they actually had reason to KILL SOMEONE

Speaking of such, they usually don't work, unless it is a speeding camera. In other countries they do have CCTV everywhere, but crimes still happen in front of the cameras.

surveillance camera footage is almost always used to help catch criminals that rob / burglarize public retail shops. That's the point of the camera is that you have more evidence of what happened.

If they even find the person to begin with. More evidence doesn't help when the evidence doesn't tell much if anything. Specially with bodycams with the shaking camera, wrong angle and low quality, usually less useful than surveillance camera footage.

Specially when you weigh in the costs. That little benefit for the cost of buying, setting up, maintaining the cameras, storing the footage, and having someone parse through them is something we have to pay. It is rather costly for the little benefits it does give us. Until we make the cameras better, cheaper, and actually useful ways to store them and look through them, cause as of now there really isn't any, they wont be as helpful as you guys think they are.

hasn't complaints of police brutality been down ever since they got introduced?

Has it? I mean we keep getting more and more stories of bad caps now a days and they are still getting off scott free most of the time. A lot of places report cameras helping, but then again a lot of places also report cameras actually making things worse, and then there are places that say it is about the same.
---

K181 posted...

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.

This is just factually not true. Body cams have been close to negligable all over the world in corrupt police court cases.

It's pure fantasy.

You're confusing courts with Sovereign Citizen Youtube accounts
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

hasn't complaints of police brutality been down ever since they got introduced?

According to the research complaints have gone down but violent attacks and aggression have shot up.

Which makes sense, you're not going to complain about Police Brutality when you're punching her in the face and calling her a f*****
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

hasn't complaints of police brutality been down ever since they got introduced?

According to the research complaints have gone down but violent attacks and aggression have shot up.

Which makes sense, you're not going to complain about Police Brutality when you're punching her in the face and calling her a f*****

Oh hey so you're saying they're used to help protect officers from spurious claims. Sounds like a great thing for everyone.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Oh hey so you're saying they're used to help protect officers from spurious claims.

Nobody said the claims were spurious. It now means actual victims are too scared to come forward and the rest are all aggressive.

Lose lose situation for everyone involved.

But I love how you reject all the evidence when you think it attacks your worldview, but the moment you incorrectly think it supports it, you embrace it.
---

theres no real legitimate, non-troll reason why cops shouldn't wear body cams.

sure, the cops might not like it. they can find another job.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

theres no real legitimate, non-troll reason why cops shouldn't wear body cams.

Except all the ones that have been repeatedly listed.

- Costs a fortune
- Increased aggression/violence/danger
- Zero affect on court
- Zero affect on corrupt cops.
- Negative affect on good cops.
- Unplesant for everyone involved.

But ignoring them and going "Lalalalalal" while covering your ears is more pleasant than reality I am sure.

There is no benefit to mandatory body cams. And you know this true, it's why you can't actually respond to the criticisms or the research, you can just insult people and be a contrarian.
---

none of those fulfill the "legitimate, non-troll" requisite

lmao @ unfair calling anyone except himself a contrarian. being a contrarian is your entire gimmick and posting style
---

There is no objective benefit whatsoever to mandatory police body cams. It's an awful awful idea on every pragmatic level. It just "sounds" good

No one who defends the practice will ever address these points because reality is unplesant while emotion is fun.

Called it.


The only argument for Mandatory Body cams is "Well we need to ignore reality and insult people who won't."

At this point it's just part of a religion. There is no rationality left, no facts, no willingless to listen, no care for fellow man. Just an emotional religious tribe.

It's very sad.
---