Video cameras worn by every cop, every day. I want it.

[TeamPooka]

So I signed the petition.
You can too.

Mike Brown Law. Requires all state, county, and local police to wear a camera.

Create a bill, sign into law, and set aside funds to require all state,county, and local police, to wear a camera. Due to the latest accounts of deadly encounters with police, We the People, petition for the Mike Brown Law. Create a bill, sign into law, and set aside funds to require all state,county, and local police, to wear a camera.The law shall be made in an effort to not only detour police misconduct(i.e. brutality, profiling, abuse of power), but to ensure that all police are following procedure, and to remove all question, from normally questionable police encounters. As well, as help to hold all parties within a police investigation, accountable for their actions.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/mike-brown-law-requires-all-state-county-and-local-police-wear-camera/8tlS5czf

[ReRe]

1. K&R

Not that it will ever happen. "We can't afford it."... they will whine. But I do think it might be wise for protesters to wear them. A protester could also carry a small digital recorder in a front breast pocket.

[RoccoR5955]

7. If they can afford the upkeep on some of those

Armored Personnel Carriers, than they can afford cameras for their "officers."

I BETTER NOT hear that whine!

[ReRe]

11. I hope you're right.

We can't afford NOT to! Get cameras on the persons who are allowed to walk around in public with guns, tasers, etc. etc., killing machines that are dangerous to peoples lives. And this just made me think.... require ALL GUN OWNERS to wear a camera when they are sporting their gun (seen or unseen.) Of course, the private gun owners would have to purchase their own camera. And they wouldn't be able to pick up their gun until they proved ownership of the camera. Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.

[raven mad]

2. Not only did I just sign.......

I was on phone with spouse and read it to him. He said SIGN MY NAME. So I did!

[Xithras]

3. There is, of course, one major reason to oppose this idea.

Per most public records laws and multiple court rulings, all police interactions with the public are public record and must be made available to the public. That's why we get to hear all of the 911 calls whenever a horrible event occurs, and why police mugshots and arrest records are all public. It's also why we get to see the dashcam videos that they are already recording in most states. If the police photograph or record anything, it's public information.

Now, with that in mind, think about cops interviewing rape victims, domestic violence abuse victims, assisting car crash victims, rendering aid to people having overdoses and heart attacks, etc. Most contact with police occurs during moments that the public would rather NOT have public. If the police are recording the situation, the video will be public record unless the police or prosecutor asks a judge to seal it in order to protect a victim. While that would probably happen in the case of a rape victim, that video of your kids drunken stumble into the back of a police car is going to be out on the Internet within a week, haunting them for the next 20 years. Or if one of your loved ones is in a horrific car crash, you can bet that the cam video of their bleeding body will be out on some gore site for the weirdos to laugh at.

While cam technology can help to keep cops honest, there's a serious privacy downside to the technology.

[Brickbat]

4. Some policies allow cops to turn off the cameras whenever they want.

This makes it possible to avoid recording victim interviews. While the officers can turn the cameras off whenever they want, doing so can create doubt if an incident were ever to come to an investigation.

[Xithras]

15. Which undermines the point of having them.

If the officer isn't required to turn it on, most will leave them off.

[Brickbat]

16. I was unclear.

It's on when the shift starts. If the officer turns it off, there will be questions why.

[RoccoR5955]

17. Or they say that they are broken.

I know that they do that to their computers, because I have to fix them. When they don't want to do paperwork these days, their computer turns up with something wrong with it, and it might take a day or two until one of us can get to it. Not to mention, the bulk of the computer repair jobs we get come from the Sheriff and Jail. And it's ALWAYS when some sort of paperwork is done, that they forgot to do without computers.

What makes one think that they wouldn't do the same thing to cameras?

[dickthegrouch]

8. I appreciate the concern

Perhaps the rules could be written to require that the cameras are only required to be turned on when there is no supervisor present. Or perhaps defense attorneys could be given password-protected disabling mechanisms, and if there's no attorney present, the recording is automatic.

As usual, not corruption- or fool-proof, but a possible way to structure the protections.

[951-Riverside]

5. Without accountability cameras won't do jack shit except make the Taser Corp wealthier

And the unintended consequences is people will be less inclined to talk to cops because of the camera in their face and cops are going to become much colder and robotic out of fear that their bosses could use any and every single thing they say from archived footage as leverage to kick them off the force if they don't go along with the program (usually the bosses are the most corrupt and vicious).

OTOH when a cop is doing something really bad they'll just not turn on the camera or make sure the battery doesnt get charged like Mary Hawk's killer did at Albuquerque PD a few months ago or smash the recording device like Officer Vince Mater did in Fullerton. Criminals will always beat whatever system in place.

Body cameras are not an end all solution when it comes to police brutality. If the Kelly Thomas murder didnt wake people up I don't know what will.

We can talk cameras after we talk about accountability.

[TeamPooka]

6. Cameras are the start of accountability. It's easy to shoot down a solution to a problem

without offering a solution of your own.
What would you do.
Accountability is not a solution.

[malthaussen]

9. The federal government has no authority in this question.

I would recommend you petition your local government authorities, who do have such jurisdiction.

-- Mal

[Xithras]

13. They have incredible leverage.

Just pass a law stating that local and state law enforcement agencies that do not have uniform cameras as not permitted to apply for federal grants, participate in federal training, request federal hardware (including those fancy rifles, vests, and MRAP's they all love), or make use of federal asset seizure rules.

The federal government can't pass a law mandating that local police departments wear cameras, but they can alter the finance model enough to ensure that the departments will chose to do so on their own.

It's like the seatbelt issue. The federal government couldn't mandate seatbelt laws, so it passed a law saying that states who don't mandate them aren't eligible for federal highway funds. The states passed the laws to avoid losing the money.

[classykaren]

10. Just like you lose your license when you refuse a breath test They lose their police license when

they turn off their camera. We just had one in St Petersburg were the cops tazered a man after he was handcuffed on the ground. A assistant district attorney asked for the tape from the car. The cop actually told him don't worry I will make that disappear. I love Unions but the Police Union is to strong. IMO

[egduj]

12. More cops or more cameras?

The hiring funds and camera funds will be same funds. I guess you can make an argument for both, but this is the single question it boils down to.

[rock]

14. A couple of questions

1) Do we really mean camera and not video recorder?
2) Do we include sound?
3) Ok, 3 questions. Must it always be on?
I can't tell from the link.