Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemhg
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.
|
The easy fix for that is don't allow them to be turned off. Legally require any presentation of the video, be it in court or in the media, to have the complete, uncut footage of the interaction. If they were in the cruiser probably start with the in car footage right from when they got the call.
Though maybe for the first bit, let the officers think they can turn them off (have the light go out but it's still recording). It'd make it really easy to find and fire a lot of the shitty cops right off the bat if they think they can avoid being recorded when they break the law.