This is just a thought.
Has there been a case where having the camera benefited the Officer? I can’t think of one off the top of my head.
And I think it’s crazy that anyone would be happy beating up, harassing and shooting innocent people, and/or defending their colleagues who do…so we’re at a little bit of an impasse with the idea of making cops “happy”…
Given that the “corrective action” for straight-up murder in a lot of cases seems to be “paid vacation,” I’m sure they can stomach whatever comes down the pike for a little “blue” language…
17 Likes
Given their role in policing the rest of us, I’m not sure they should expect to be free from oversight. They are invested with the coercive power of violence by the state. That deserves a higher standard of scrutiny.
Besides, there are plenty of jobs in our country where employees are pretty much watched every second they are on the clock, from low paying service sector jobs to higher paying jobs which involve the use of computers.
[ETA] Oh, and they work for us, as they are paid out of state and local budgets. So there’s that.
20 Likes
Except most of us in the private sector are pretty decently monitored. Cops are civil servants, employed by the cities they serve, and legally allowed to use lethal force.
If they have a problem about being accountable for infringing on civil rights up to and including lethal means, then they should find another line of work or STFU.
12 Likes
Both on the same wavelength… so i’ll add that body cameras can also be seen as a means to document false claims of police brutality.
People tend to behave in a more civil fashion when they know they’re being recorded.
1 Like
I’m more interested in civilian oversight aspect of body cams, as that seems a much more critical issue to me.
2 Likes
I believe it’s happened on occasion. The problem is that so often the accountability is iffy to begin with. Footage is edited, not released, or the cameras on cops involved in situations “magically” turn off/malfunction.
1 Like
I’d say fire them all and get the national guard to step in to be a temporary force. Those that cannot be fired because of their union can be assigned to be meter maids.
Oh I’m all for making bodycams mandatory, but I think it’s naïve to expect officers to want to wear them.
9 Likes
The “National Guard” isn’t the panacea that you may think it is: it’s working people who then have to get temporary leave from their real jobs to go sit on a street corner in full gear for 3 weeks. Also, the members of the Guard are more often than not the exact same cops, sheriffs, and firefighters that you’re hoping to temporarily replace.
Further- you’re essentially declaring martial law by sending in the guard. That’s political death to any mayor/governor that invokes that, unless downtown is underwater or the whole southside is on fire.
9 Likes
Typo in headline. Should read:
“In all of Boston, there is not one decent cop.”
3 Likes
I’m not saying it’s not needed I’m simply saying that if your a good officer (those are the majority) your feeling like there is nothing good that will come out of this.
Once again I think the cameras are needed because we give these people the authority to use force. But the only way they are going to be comfortable with it is if they start to see a personal benefit.
1 Like
Are they afraid of being seen as traitors?
You’re supposed to be working for the people, and they have every right to see exactly what they’re getting for their money.
If you don’t want to work for the people, quit the force immediately
5 Likes
I agree. All I’m saying is that the police don’t see any benefit. If all the cameras are used for is punishment then the cameras will not be utilized properly.
I don’t think anyone likes to be under the all seeing eye of the panopticon regardless of the job they are employed in. I had a job once where you had to clock out to use the bathroom, every word you spoke was recorded and you were under constant surveillance and scrutiny. That job sucked.
2 Likes
Here’s an experiment: How many people here will volunteer to set up a webcam with a public link, pointing at their workstation? I sure as hell wouldn’t.
People can be pretty darned sensitive about being watched by strangers. No clue why that is…
7 Likes
Judging by all of the “issues” the Chicago PD has with their Body Cams…they aren’t up to the GoPro standards.
1 Like
every action I perform in the guts of our LIMS is logged and can be reviewed by my employer. the body cam for LEOs has a similar function, the higher ups have a chance to perform a post-mortem* on police operations.
* probably not the best wording in regard to US police… my POV is IT security/data privacy
5 Likes
Would you volunteer to have the webcam set up if the footage is only ever seen immediately after you use lethal force against a person?
4 Likes
Body cameras are for review. This isn’t a case of “snoopervision” that people in low wage jobs often encounter. The camera footage isn’t being watched daily to offer a point-by-point critique of every action a cop takes. They exist to collect evidence and so that claims about shootings and brutality can be verified. In a world with dash cams and cockpit voice recorders, the “how would you like to be watched” argument kind of falls flat. Jobs where accountability is important already highly correlate with monitoring and logging of one kind or another.
To that end, I don’t think cops saying stupid shit on cam while they are talking to their buddies should ever be brought into the public eye. If it’s not relevant to an incident, the footage shouldn’t be released. Otherwise it jeopardizes the effort.
14 Likes
What guarantees will you offer of that being the case that I’ll actually believe? One doesn’t have to go far to find stories of traffic cams recording more than they were supposed to.
