Quote:
Originally Posted by underscore
Which rights exactly? I only ask because a lot of the time people worrying about "their rights" don't even know what they are.
Without a camera it's already a he-said-she-said with the cop so it would be difficult for a camera to make that much worse for someone.
|
Trust me, I don't buy into that narrative, but Skinny mentioned one point.
Another point is facial recognition, there is some concern that such cams would have the ability to amass a facial database of sorts (which I also think is silly, we have cameras everywhere at this point with such tools).
One point was made that the cameras could be used to protect an offending officer by parsing the recorded clips in a manner in which makes the officer's appear legitimate.
For example, often times officers will turn their cameras off during certain parts, so for example, if the officer turned their camera off during the initial arrest, removing the context of the situation. If the camera is turned on only during an ensuing struggle, it would appear the officer's actions are valid, however leaving out the vital points preceding the interaction.
Thus the recording could be used to protect the officer, meanwhile he might've been kicking the guy in the head, or planting fake evidence, you name it prior to the camera being activated.
Ultimately I think those instances pale in comparison to the positives of forcing the officers to carry cams. I'm just fielding some counter arguments I've heard against the cams.