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

(+) Yeah! (+)

you still haven't posted any evidence. therefore nothing you have posted fulfills the "legitimate, non-troll" requisite
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

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.

So I take it "you" also are against all other surveillance cameras too? I mean, camera footage is rarely, if ever, the sole piece of damning evidence and we could save lots of money by not having them installed and maintained all over the place.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

you still haven't posted any evidence

Wut, yes I have.



Most of it is buried in .gov websites but you can find several sources talking about it:

https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/17/study-finds-that-police-body-cameras-may-increase-assaults-if-used-improperly/
http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/alumni/theses/Darren%20Henstock.pdf
https://www.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.cam.ac.uk/files/article.pdf
https://gizmodo.com/cops-wearing-body-cameras-are-more-likely-to-be-assault-1777104650
https://www.fastcompany.com/3061935/police-body-cameras-livestreaming-face-recognition-and-ai

The long and sort of it is they have tested police with Body cams and police without body cams in parts of the US, UK and Western Europe and the results are pretty consistent across the board. Civilians are more angry, insulting, aggressive (verbally and physically) and dangerous to towards cops with cams than those without.

Equally what is universial across the board is well is that body cam footage is negliable across courts. The idea of a cop going off on one and beating the shit out of a 13 year old girl, then getting anyway with it until the court slaps the body cam footage on the table and goes "Look at the truuuuuuuuth!" is pure fantasy.

That's not how courts or justice systems work. It's close to impossible to imagine a scenario where the only damning piece of evidence is a body cam. And if such a scenario where to even exist a corrupt cop wuld easily dispose of the cam.

It's a whack idea yo. The solution to life's problems isn't "Let's do what they did in 1984, that'll be the ticket!"

You and everyone else just ignored it.

Research in the US and Western Europe has shown that it results increased aggression and violence.

And it's undisputable fact that mandatory body cams for all police will cost a lot of money.
And it's also undisputable fact that body cam footage has historically been negligable in court cases.

The only thing that remains which is doesn't have facts or research behind it is whether or not cops personally enjoy wearing them or it hinders them. And here they are right now telling you that they don't like it and it's unfair, and you're ignoring them too.

As I said, religion. You're the same as a Fundamentalist Christian insisting Earth is 6,000 years old and Eve came from Adam's rib while going "Well there's no evidence it's not true. You won't post any you idiot troll poop poop ugly filling sandwih blaster!" and then smelling your own farts.

Mandatory body cams FEEL like a good idea to ignorant people who refuse to look at reality. But they are a pragmatically awful idea, and a lose/lose for everyone involved.

It's like stapling a smiley face to a cancer patient and then saying it cures him, all because you don't really want to look at him suffer. Your feelings are irrelevant.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

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.

You've demonstrated evidence of exactly one of your points.

We're supposed to take it in faith that you aren't full of it?

https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/17/study-finds-that-police-body-cameras-may-increase-assaults-if-used-improperly/

This article is a hypothetical.

http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/alumni/theses/Darren%20Henstock.pdf

This is some kid's master's thesis, literally an opinion piece riddled with biased sources.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.cam.ac.uk/files/article.pdf

Did you read this one? It states inconsistent findings. Some areas violence goes up, some it goes down.

https://gizmodo.com/cops-wearing-body-cameras-are-more-likely-to-be-assault-1777104650

The two sources this article uses are A) The article you posted with inconsistent findings, and B) European, leaving it still unclear what the situation in America is.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3061935/police-body-cameras-livestreaming-face-recognition-and-ai

This one is more or less pro-Body Cam.

At least deliver some reputable sources to back your argument up with.
---

Cameras are great in concept and I support them, but right now they are pointless as long as the courts still let cops get away with anything. Or justice system is what needs to be fixed. Cops can murder people on camera and get away with it.

And stop feeding UR you dopes. If you know he's just going to be contrarian then why are you wasting your lives trying to argue with him?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

So I take it "you" also are against all other surveillance cameras too?

If someone had a proposal that meant spending large amounts of my money and all evidence/research demonstrated that it would do nothing but harm people , then yes I would oppose it too.

If it didn't then I wouldn't.

This is a very simple concept you don't seem to understand, how you feel is not relevant to whether or not something is a good idea. It has nothing to do with how you feel about surveillance cameras as a notion.

A metaphor:

You want to spend my money to put mandatory cameras inside women's underpants. When they ask why you go "WELL Wall-Mart has surveillance cameras! do you oppose them!?"

All you're doing is demonstrating that you have no ability to think rationally and that you can't actually think of a strong argument for your idea, so you're trying to spin a bizarre different argument
---

Southernfatman posted...

but right now they are pointless as long as the courts still let cops get away with anything.

Body cams have no noticable effect on courts.

Why is this hard to understand. Whether or not you think courts are too soft on cops, whether or not they had body cams would have no effect on it. Even if they became super hard on cops. Bodycams would have no real impact
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

So I take it "you" also are against all other surveillance cameras too?

If someone had a proposal that meant spending large amounts of my money and all evidence/research demonstrated that it would do nothing but harm people , then yes I would oppose it too.

If it didn't then I wouldn't.

This is a very simple concept you don't seem to understand, how you feel is not relevant to whether or not something is a good idea. It has nothing to do with how you feel about surveillance cameras as a notion.

A metaphor:

You want to spend my money to put mandatory cameras inside women's underpants. When they ask why you go "WELL Wall-Mart has surveillance cameras! do you oppose them!?"

All you're doing is demonstrating that you have no ability to think rationally and that you can't actually think of a strong argument for your idea, so you're trying to spin a bizarre different argument

So, that's a no you don't support them since they also do not have a huge impact.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Southernfatman posted...

but right now they are pointless as long as the courts still let cops get away with anything.

Body cams have no noticable effect on courts.

Why is this hard to understand. Whether or not you think courts are too soft on cops, whether or not they had body cams would have no effect on it. Even if they became super hard on cops. Bodycams would have no real impact

yes they would. video evidence > his word vs their word
why are you incapable of understanding this simple, basic fact
---

Rika_Furude posted...

yes they would. video evidence > his word vs their word

Because court cases are not his word v.s their word.

You're confusing your Soveriegn Citizen Youtube feed with courts.

There is no history of cops going out in the street with a shotgun and murdering little girls until a brave DA comes up with a body cam and goes "Not so fast! I have the footage!" and foils the evil cop.

That's not reality. There are immensely few cases where bodycam footage is even admissed and when it is it is purely to support existing evidence. Not instead of it.

why are you incapable of understanding this simple, basic fact

Hypocrisy.

Because it's not a fact. It's just something you want to be true so you accept despite being false.

As I said. It's a religion for you. You're no better than a conservative Muslim or Christian.
---

"video evidence is no good in court" is NOT a fact, nobody with at least 2 brain cells to rub together will ever believe your obvious bullshit UR
---

Like it matters. People who want to hate Cops will ignore body cam evidence and still spew their nonsense on every Police related shooting justified or not.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

"video evidence is no good in court" is NOT a fact,

It's also not what anyone said.


But the fact you'd rather lie than admit you are wrong yet still want to spend my money to hurt people says it all.

You're devoutly religious, this is your religion.

Vyrulisse posted...

Like it matters. People who want to hate Cops will ignore body cam evidence and still spew their nonsense on every Police related shooting justified or not.

It's dangerous to assume body cams tell the whole story whether you want to hate cops or not, Even a cop who looks great in a body cam video could still be corrupt.

In fact a real corrupt cop will have zero issues making sure they are never caught
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

But the fact you'd rather lie than admit you are wrong

you've posted no legitimate, non-troll argument to counter. you have nothing. what is for me to counter? you've posted nothing. I can't be wrong when you've made no effort to present an argument.
---

I can see it causing a lot less people to want to be a cop. Imagine of every single thing you do is put under a microscope. Nobody wants that. That or you get some protesters or criminals who know you have the thing, so they push the limits and try to get you to assault them. That way they can cry brutality.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

you've posted no legitimate, non-troll argument to counter.

Except all the research and facts. From literally all over the world.

But they're illegitimate purely because you feel like you don't like them.

Very sad.



RE_expert44 posted...

I can see it causing a lot less people to want to be a cop. Imagine of every single thing you do is put under a microscope.

While everything will be recorded not everything will be viewed.

Although it will definately make cops much less comfortable. You won't be able to make that funny joke in the car anymore incase it's twisted into being spiteful.

Nobody wants that. That or you get some protesters or criminals who know you have the thing, so they push the limits and try to get you to assault them. That way they can cry brutality.

This is what the research is showing happens. Civilians either try to push cops hoping they will snap or try to harras cops thinking they won't react because it's filmed.

It puts everyone in danger.

On top of that, it's horrible for criminals who commit minor offenses, especially black males.

Cop catches you littering/Jay-walking or smoking pot? He's not going to slap you on the wrist anymore, he's being filmed now. He can't do any favors, that could be held against him or her later. You're getting arrested by the book.

It's a really really bad idea. The fact people have to ignore reality to defend it says it all frankly.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Except all the research and facts. From literally all over the world.

All your links were either trash, misleading, or found both benefits and detriments to body cams. Someone already pointed this out in post 104 but of course, you would ignore that.
---

UnfairRepresent has been posting all day about how these body cams are terrible, how they'll never work, how they're a waste of money, etc.

I'd like to know, what's his solution to police accountability, then? What, in his opinion, should we do instead of bodycams to ensure that police are held accountable for their actions?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Except all the research and facts. From literally all over the world.

all debunked already earlier itt, putting you back at square 1
---

MysticMismagius posted...

UnfairRepresent has been posting all day about how these body cams are terrible, how they'll never work,

Actually I haven't said either of things.

Try listening before posting. You'd learn.


_Near_ posted...

or found both benefits and detriments to body cams.

Actually they didn't. The "benefit" was

1. Well if they're smart with body cams agression increases 15% not 87%, That's still bad.

2. Complaints of abuse go down. Which doesn't mean problems go down and of course complaints will go down if 15-87% of people are being aggressive.

It only shows detriments. They're trying to spin it otherwise because they need to sell clicks to your worldview.

kenio8185 posted...

Well, to be fair, a lot of officers who have used them have said that they feel A LOT more comfortable with them on.

And more power to them. If they want to wear them and it has a positive effect on the community, they should.

MysticMismagius posted...

I'd like to know, what's his solution to police accountability, then? What, in his opinion, should we do instead of bodycams to ensure that police are held accountable for their actions?

First off bodycams have nothing to do with police accountability so your entire question is a flawed premise. In fact literally the opposite, body cams will hurt good cops and corrupt cops will hide themselves.

Accountability comes from community. Interaction with your locals, police, courts. Not just accepting a worldview you enjoy and then screamingly loudly at facts you dislike.

Instead of watching Youtube videos of a cop being a jerk and going "If only I made other people pay for everyone to have bodycams we would stop this!" talk to your local police, sent letters to your congressmen, go to local events, if there are no local events then create a local event of your own.

But I don't believe people like you or Rika are willing to do that, you want people to suffer so long as you feel like it's a good idea.

The long and short is that people who interact with officers are a lot less assholish when there are body cams. Because then officers can very easily prove they acted properly. With that said,

Global research says this is not true and the complete opposite is the case. People are more aggressive and more assholish when there are body cams.

Please stop thinking what you WANT to be true.
---

UR dodges again because he can never follow an argument through
---

How come he hasn't looked at post 104?
---

LightningAce11 posted...

How come he hasn't looked at post 104?

UR is known as the shitter and quitter. He will post exactly 1 argument per topic and refuse to ever back it up or admit he loses. He ignores anyone who proves him wrong by putting his hands on his ears and screaming
---

LightningAce11 posted...

How come he hasn't looked at post 104?

I did, it was just someone going "Those sources don't count because they are not reputable!"

From a guy who doesn't seem to realize this was research done by governments and universities and those sites were just commenting on it. Because sadly he didn't read them.

And he didn't read them because he doesn't want them to be true.

He's essentially Donald Trump going "Fake News!" when someone points out his approval rating and fact-checks his lies.

That's the pro-mandatory body cams guys in this topic are in terms of their logic. Religious nuts and Redneck Trump supporters.
---

kenio8185 posted...

What global research?

The extensive research done in the US and Western Europe by governments and universities testing body cams.

I was saying what cops who have used them regularly have reported. I'm not saying what I WANT to be true, I'm saying what IS true.

Prove it then because you know something the rest of the world's leading research doesn't. Where are these regular reports of cops talking about how great mandatory body cams are? Show us.

Said while their union and all research literally says the opposite.

And he was never seen again
---

*reads article*

I can see the argument and there's some merit to it, but sounds like an administrative issue and not an issue with body cameras. They should be used to provide facts about criminal proceedings and gross officer misconduct, not used as a bureaucratic nepotism tool.
---

pinky0926 posted...

They should be used to provide facts about criminal proceedings and gross officer misconduct

They don't do that though. That's the problem.

Bodycams have a negligable effect on court proceedings.

It's like saying boots should prevent car crashes. You wanting it to be true doesn't stop it from being a non-sequitur and do not use my money to buy everyone ugly boots.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

pinky0926 posted...

They should be used to provide facts about criminal proceedings and gross officer misconduct

They don't do that though. That's the problem.

Bodycams have a negligable effect on court proceedings.

It's like saying boots should prevent car crashes. You wanting it to be true doesn't stop it from being a non-sequitur and do not use my money to buy everyone ugly boots.

I'm not going to get wrapped up in an argument you guys have been having for 3 pages that I just stumbled into, but I like bodycams and think they are what we need for the future, even if they're currently riddled with issues. I think of it as teething and administrative issues.
---

thronedfire2 posted...

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?

yes, and there are many where they are not. All I'm saying is that a lot of people who aren't being recorded would probably not want to be recorded, for many different reasons. That's all I'm saying, not that cops shouldn't use them, because I think they should, but that it is a normal reaction to not what to be recorded doing everything they are doing.

And yes, there are jobs where people are being recorded and there's no issue. I'm just expressing my sympathy for those who'd prefer not to be recorded. I understand where some of them are coming from (and I do believe others are actually not behaving appropriately and don't want to be recorded to save their asses, this is not who i'm talking about).

pinky0926 posted...

I'm not going to get wrapped up in an argument , but I like bodycams and think they are what we need for the future,

Thats the problem with your side.

"I'm not going to look at the facts but I feel like theyre a good thing so let's fuck people over and spend your money to hurt people."

Says it all right there. Lazy arrogant religion.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

pinky0926 posted...

I'm not going to get wrapped up in an argument , but I like bodycams and think they are what we need for the future,

Thats the problem with your side.

"I'm not going to look at the facts but I feel like theyre a good thing so let's fuck people over and spend your money to hurt people."

Says it all right there. Lazy arrogant religion.

Jesus dude, you're clearly pretty wound up by whatever conversation you're having with other posters to snap at me like that. I just said I don't have the energy to argue about it right now, but I'm on the pro side of the discussion and yes I've read into it. I don't think my sources agree with your sources, but for once I'm not going to get into a pointless 3 hour CE debate about it.
---

you dodged post 104, you have no room to complain about others discrediting your shitposts
---

pinky0926 posted...

I don't think my sources agree with your sources,

What are your sources?

Mine are American and Western European Governments and universities AND The police Union itself.

And on top of that, you literally just admitted yourself that you only think the way you do because you "Feel" like it's a good idea.

And yes it bothers me when someone says "I'm going to take your money and use it to hurt people for no benefit because I feel like it's a good idea and am too lazy to look at the facts." it should bother you too.

Don't now go "I have my sources!" after the fact without presenting them
---

*Sigh*

Some:

http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/alumni/theses/Darren%20Henstock.pdf
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/use-of-body-worn-cameras-sees-complaints-against-police-virtually-vanish-study-finds
https://www.techuk.org/insights/news/item/8687-police-body-worn-video-cameras-are-a-quantifiable-success
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=mcc_pv&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA481244344&sid=summon&asid=092d5e805811bd642795a0d0b8d4c426
https://www.bja.gov/bwc/pdfs/DiagnosticCenter_PoliceOfficerBody-WornCameras.pdf
https://publicservice.asu.edu/sites/default/files/ppd_spi_feb_20_2015_final.pdf

Meta:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0004865816638909

Abstract from the meta above:
An abundance of evidence was provided; however, the majority of articles were methodologically weak. Body-worn video was shown to reduce use of force incidents, crime rates for certain crime types and court costs. Public response to body-worn video was varied, as was police officer and public opinion. Due to methodological limitations evident in most studies and the general lack of peer-reviewed material, further research is required; however, there are some considerable benefits reported in the current literature.

TL;DR - they seem to work well at what they're supposed to do, but results are inconclusive and obviously the technology is currently expensive and time consuming. More testing required.

I mean at best we could say that more studies should be done to support both my position and yours, however it does seem that they're leaning in the direction of "these things work and we just need to make them easier to use and distribute".
---

one more time, UR, where is your research coming from?
---

prettyprincess posted...

one more time, UR, where is your research coming from?

American and Western Euorpean Governments and universities.

pinky0926 posted...

*Sigh*

Some:

http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/alumni/theses/Darren%20Henstock.pdf
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/use-of-body-worn-cameras-sees-complaints-against-police-virtually-vanish-study-finds
https://www.techuk.org/insights/news/item/8687-police-body-worn-video-cameras-are-a-quantifiable-success
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=mcc_pv&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA481244344&sid=summon&asid=092d5e805811bd642795a0d0b8d4c426
https://www.bja.gov/bwc/pdfs/DiagnosticCenter_PoliceOfficerBody-WornCameras.pdf
https://publicservice.asu.edu/sites/default/files/ppd_spi_feb_20_2015_final.pdf

Meta:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0004865816638909

Abstract from the meta above:
An abundance of evidence was provided; however, the majority of articles were methodologically weak. Body-worn video was shown to reduce use of force incidents, crime rates for certain crime types and court costs. Public response to body-worn video was varied, as was police officer and public opinion. Due to methodological limitations evident in most studies and the general lack of peer-reviewed material, further research is required; however, there are some considerable benefits reported in the current literature.

TL;DR - they seem to work well at what they're supposed to do, but results are inconclusive and obviously the technology is currently expensive and time consuming. More testing required.

I mean at best we could say that more studies should be done to support both my position and yours, however it does seem that they're leaning in the direction of "these things work and we just need to make them easier to use and distribute".

Most of those sources are the same ones I used and they are not saying that violence and aggression are down, they are saying that civilians complaints about police brutality are down while violence and aggression towards police are up.

That's not a positive at all.

Undisputed fact that aggression from civilians has grown (something you denied because you feel like it shouldn't be so)
And the police themselves are saying they don't want it (something else you denied)

There is no positive here to expensive mandatory cams. Only negatives. Your own "sources" say the same thing if you would read them instead of just cut-pasting them
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

They absolutely are.

Body cams for police is a terrible idea with no gain. People just like it because it "feels" like a solution. So it gets armchair support.

Research in the US and Western Europe has shown that civilians are much more aggressive towards cops when they have body cams. It puts both them and the cop in danger.

At the same time, it costs a lot of tax payer to insert the cams.

And there are negligable examples ever of police bodycam footage being relevant in court cases. If a cop is being taken to ask for beating someone up, whether or not the incident was caught on body cam has miminal effect on the case as there would be clear evidence elsewhere if he did such a thing.

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

Which has a knock on negative effect. What happens? Good cops get caught either out of context or in tense situations and get railed.

What do bad cops do? Either turn off their cams or do corrupt things outside of view.


Tl;dr

Body cams cost money
They put people in danger + make them violent
They do not help or protect anyone
They do not curb corrupt police
They tarnish the career of good police.

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.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sd-san-diego-body-cameras-working-20170210-story.html

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/10/economist-explains-10

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/29/police-with-body-cameras-receive-93-fewer-complaints-study

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-32581019
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

...

I didn't deny either of those things ,do you have me confused with someone else? What I posted was that opinions are mixed and inconclusive.

However some positive extracts based on evidence from each:

Experimental evidence from Birmingham South shows that body worn cameras reduce the odds of use of force in arrests by about 50% and injuries to suspects by 65%.

Furthermore, even as the only half of the officers wore BWV devices, the rate of complaints against the officers taking part fell from 0.7 per 1000 to 0.007 per 1000

Conducted in Rialto, California the research appears to support the hypothesis that the use of BWV creates a greater sense of self-awareness in both the officers and the members of the public with whom they interact. Essentially, both individuals exhibit some form of behavioural change when a recording camera is present.

One of the foremost, by the Metropolitan Police Service, focused on the effect of BWV on stop-and-search incidents (traditionally a highly controversial method in London) and reported that 92% of the public questioned agreed that police accountability was increased and improved by the cameras.

During the year-long trial, public order and assault crimes fell by 18%. The operation also found that BWV technology had the potential to protect officers (complaints against officers decreased by a third) and expedited the court proceedings (possibly by BWV-sourced footage being perceived as a more acceptable form of evidence).

Year-long study of almost 2,000 officers across UK and US forces shows introduction of wearable cameras led to a 93% drop in complaints made against police by the public. Across all seven trial sites during the 12 months preceding the study, a total of 1,539 complaints were lodged against police, amounting to 1.2 complaints per officer. By the end of the experiment, complaints had dropped to 113 for the year across all sites just 0.08 complaints per officer marking a total reduction of 93%.

Evidence from several studies (Goodall 2007; ODS Consulting 2011) indicates that body-worn cameras assist in the investigation and resolution of citizen complaints and that the technology may reduce the likelihood that citizens will file frivolous or untruthful complaints.

Results from the UK studies suggest that video evidence from body-worn cameras reduces officer time devoted to paperwork, enhances officers ability to determine whether a crime occurred, and increases the likelihood that cases will end in guilty plea rather than criminal trial.

the officer worn body cameras were found to be beneficial to the officers and the courts in a number of ways. First, officer productivity as measured through the number of arrests increased significantly. For instance, the number of arrests increased by about 17% among the target group compared to 9% in the comparison group. Second, complaints against the police declined significantly. Complaints against officers who wore the cameras declined by 23%, 41 compared to a 10.6% increase among comparison officers and 45.1% increase among patrol officers in other precincts.

Last, we examined the impact of body worn cameras on domestic violence case processing. Analysis of the data indicated that following the implementation of body cameras, cases were significantly more likely to be initiated, result in charges filed, and result in a guilty plea or guilty verdict.

Now personally, I think a lot of the methodology here is really weak, so it's surprising to me that you're so sure of your conclusions when clearly the researchers aren't remotely sure of anything.

---

I don't agree that "people think body cams are a good thing" and "People complain less when cops have body cams" are positives. Which is the large majority of those points you are raising.

In fact "people think body cams are a good thing" are what got us into this mess in the first place.

If a cop is corrupt people standing up and complaining is likely the only thing that will ever take him or her down. I see that as at best negliable and most likely a huge negative.

People think Mandatory body cams are a good thing because like Rika they watch Sovereign Citizen youtube videos and see cops being jerks on their social media feed and go "well if we had mandatory body cams these guys would be taken down in court!"

And that's just not the case at all.

Those are negatives.

The only real positive there was instance in one location (Which you yourself argue is inconsistent) that said people who get arrested are less likely to get injured.

Which is a good thing but is not justification for mandatory body cams even BEFORE you touch on the negatives.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Now personally, I think a lot of the methodology here is really weak, so it's surprising to me that you're so sure of your conclusions when clearly the researchers aren't remotely sure of anything.

And just to address this. The researchers are sure of their findings.

The people reporting on them don't want to say that because their findings go against worldviews.

It's just like how every health organization on the planet says that circumcision is an unhealthy surgery but then will go silent when asked to say they condemn it. Because they don't want to be called racist by Jews and SJWs.

Same reason why universities are banning research into transgender happiness post surgeries

Any organization that says the facts as I have said them will be attacked by millions of Rikas who are emotionally disturbed by reality.

If the research showed positive results for body cams, every news organization on the planet would be screaming that from the rooftops because it's what people WANT to hear because it FEELS good.

By your own admission you've admitted this yourself, that it FEELS right. Never forget that, it's very important to remember how little what you feel means. It means nothing. Less than nothing in fact,
---

Solid Sonic posted...

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2017/09/22/police-union-says-body-cams-could-be-unfair-to-officers/

Dashcams have saved cops more than condemned them. For example, the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jonathan_Ferrell

Dashcam recorded the suspect sprinting at him just before the fatal shots.

UR is detached from reality, thats the only explanation.
---

There were several facets to everything I just posted.

1) people complain less about officer conduct
2) use of force by officers was reduced
3) people (both officers and civilians) behaved better
4) cameras assist in officers' investigation of cases
5) in domestic violence cases success in convictions went up

People complaining less when body cameras are present suggests to me that many of those complains might be frivolous or fraudulent. Either way it's more accountable and transparent. I definitely take that as a positive. If a cop is corrupt and you have it on camera and you have the right to that footage, you will definitely complain, and you will have more confidence that your complaint will be taken seriously. Where is the negative in that? Unless you can offer another reason for why people complained less in the presence of a camera?

I feel that you're downplaying officer accountability as no big deal when for me it's basically a deal maker.
---

Ammonitida posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2017/09/22/police-union-says-body-cams-could-be-unfair-to-officers/

Dashcams have saved cops more than condemned them. For example, the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jonathan_Ferrell

Dashcam recorded the suspect sprinting at him just before the fatal shots.

Ammonitida posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2017/09/22/police-union-says-body-cams-could-be-unfair-to-officers/

Dashcams have saved cops more than condemned them. For example, the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jonathan_Ferrell

Dashcam recorded the suspect sprinting at him just before the fatal shots.

Jeff never said otherwise, he just said dashcam footage has been used unfairly to harras innocent officers.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Now personally, I think a lot of the methodology here is really weak, so it's surprising to me that you're so sure of your conclusions when clearly the researchers aren't remotely sure of anything.

And just to address this. The researchers are sure of their findings.

The people reporting on them don't want to say that because their findings go against worldviews.

It's just like how every health organization on the planet says that circumcision is an unhealthy surgery but then will go silent when asked to say they condemn it. Because they don't want to be called racist by Jews and SJWs.

Same reason why universities are banning research into transgender happiness post surgeries

Any organization that says the facts as I have said them will be attacked by millions of Rikas who are emotionally disturbed by reality.

If the research showed positive results for body cams, every news organization on the planet would be screaming that from the rooftops because it's what people WANT to hear because it FEELS good.

By your own admission you've admitted this yourself, that it FEELS right. Never forget that, it's very important to remember how little what you feel means. It means nothing. Less than nothing in fact,

No dude, every study I posted said they needed further research, that the testing pools were too small, that results are contradictory and inconclusive and the meta suggested the methodology was weak. Are you going to make me post the extracts that prove all of that?

That's what the studies say. Everything you wrote in this post amounts to a "I reckon they just don't want to say how they really feel about it". That's your opinion. A pretty wild one, I may say.
---

pinky0926 posted...

1) people complain less about officer conduct

Not a positive.

2) use of force by officers was reduced

Not consistent AND not automatically a positive

3) people (both officers and civilians) behaved better

Not true at all. Civilians are more dangerous and aggressive. This is a flat out falsehood

4) cameras assist in officers' investigation of cases
5) in domestic violence cases success in convictions went up

Not true in the courts. just in police investigations. And as such is irrelevant to the demand for MANDATORY body cams against police wishes.

pinky0926 posted...

People complaining less when body cameras are present suggests to me that many of those complains might be frivolous or fraudulent. Either way it's more accountable and transparent. I definitely take that as a positive. If a cop is corrupt and you have it on camera and you have the right to that footage, you will definitely complain, and you will have more confidence that your complaint will be taken seriously. Where is the negative in that? Unless you can offer another reason for why people complained less in the presence of a camera?

I feel that you're downplaying officer accountability as no big deal when for me it's basically a deal maker

I'm not downplaying officer accountability, i'm downplaying the use of body cams for officer accountability because body cams have been negigable in that area.

And if a cop is corrupt the odds of it being caught on body cam are less than lottery winner odds. If I catch it on camera then I will have it regardless of body cam.

Think about it, if a cop is corrupt and going to beat the shit out of a little girl you think he's just going to forget he has a body cam?

There's already a history of cops losing their cams or cams "turning off" or "falling down" in a heated exchange and there are corrupt cops who are caught, suspended or fired every day who DO wear cams and were never caught doing anything wrong on cam.

Even when they ARE caught on body cam, in nearly every case the evidence that damns them in court and in the police department is not the body cam footage, its something else. The wounds on the victim were clearly police inflicted or drugs on the scene having the cops finger prints on them or whatever.

You're argument is a strawman "By pointing out body cams are negliable for corrupt cops, you're saying you don't hold cops accountable!" no I am saying body cams aren't useful in that regard.

The only cases of body cams having affect on courts and cases comes from when they get public outcry causing judges to be harsher due to pressure. Which I would argue is not a good thing as one quick look at Rika or the Zimmerman incident shows you how deranged the public can be when it comes to believing whatever they like.

And that has nothing to do with accountability
---

I hate to be one of those types who quote themselves, but:

Southernfatman posted...

And stop feeding UR you dopes. If you know he's just going to be contrarian then why are you wasting your lives trying to argue with him?

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

pinky0926 posted...

1) people complain less about officer conduct

Not a positive.

Also not a negative, it depends on the nature of the complaint doesn't it? You have to question why someone would choose not to complain about something that happened in the presence of video evidence.

Not consistent AND not automatically a positive

Not consistent but I think if the situation is still resolved then any reduction in force is a positive.

Not true at all. Civilians are more dangerous and aggressive. This is a flat out falsehood

Since our studies contradict each other can we say this is inconclusive? You know, like the researchers suggest in every study how they need to do more testing on it.

Not true in the courts. just in police investigations. And as such is irrelevant to the demand for MANDATORY body cams against police wishes.

So you're admitting that they were helpful in police investigations?

pinky0926 posted...

I'm not downplaying officer accountability, i'm downplaying the use of body cams for officer accountability because body cams have been negigable in that area.

Literally every study I posted suggested a huge change in police behaviour and the researchers believing it due to the effect of having to conduct themselves more appropriately.

And if a cop is corrupt the odds of it being caught on body cam are less than lottery winner odds. If I catch it on camera then I will have it regardless of body cam.

Think about it, if a cop is corrupt and going to beat the shit out of a little girl you think he's just going to forget he has a body cam?

That has already happened a lot, though. Police have managed to incriminate themselves on bodycams quite a lot already.
---