SoylentNews

US Senator Wants All Cops to Wear Cameras

posted by n1 on Thursday August 28 2014, @11:55AM   
from the it-wasn't-me dept.

Hugh Pickens writes:

David Kravets writes that US Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) says police departments nationwide should require their officers to wear body cameras in order to qualify for the hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding they receive each year. "Everywhere I go, people now have cameras," said McCaskill during a question-and-answer session with voters in her home state of Missouri. "And police officers are now at a disadvantage because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of the encounter. And it gives the impression that the police officer has overreacted when they haven't."

Only a small number of US police departments have outfitted their officers with body cameras, including forces in Fresno, California; Oakland; Rialto, California; Pittsburgh; Salt Lake City; and Cincinnati. A recent study with the Rialto Police Department showed that use-of-force incidents and citizen complaints have been dramatically curtailed since the department began wearing body cams [PDF].

• Agreed, but not just for the reason he gives Agreed, but not just for the reason he gives (Score: 4, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday August 28 2014, @12:59PM

  by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday August 28 2014, @12:59PM (#86707) Homepage

  police officers are now at a disadvantage because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of the encounter. And it gives the impression that the police officer has overreacted when they haven't.

  What about the public being at a disadvantage when no record of the encounter exists?

  What about the fact that convictions are much easier when video evidence exists?

  Don't think "is this good for the cops?" Think "is this good for the public?" With a properly run police force the former should imply the latter anyway.

  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+2
  Insightful=1, Underrated=1, Total=2
  Extra 'Insightful' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		4

• Re:Agreed, but not just for the reason he gives (Score: 3) by strattitarius on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:13PM

  by strattitarius (3191) on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:13PM (#86731) Journal

  But that is an acceptable reason for those that want to side with the police. The best solution is one that both sides agree with help them out. And it seems like cameras fit that... after all, if you have nothing to hide...

  --
  Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.

  Parent

• Re:Agreed, but not just for the reason he gives (Score: 3, Funny) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:38PM

  by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:38PM (#86740)

  And it gives the impression that the police officer has overreacted when they haven't.

  Mal: Stack everything right here, in plain sight. Wouldn't want to seem like we got anything to hide. Might give them Alliance boys the wrong impression.
  Wash: Or the right one.
  Mal: That too.

  --
  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"

  Parent