• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should police be required to wear body cams?

Winston

Advanced stage dementia patient pls support my run
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
24,284
Reaction score
23,178
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Should police be required to wear body cams?

Data is still muddied as to whether or not body cams reduce police misconduct. I feel like it is a gross invasion of personal privacy but, if you can turn them off so, they don't roll when you're just eating lunch with your buddies or talking shop with the detectives, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. In my opinion, police should be required to fire their cameras up for all stops. That would prevent police brutality, bribes, cops confiscating contraband and pocketing it.

It could also potentially cut back on police giving people breaks. And citizen's wouldn't like that very much. Pull someone over for 20 over, with a body cam, would they be required to write them up for 20 over, and not bump it down to 15 for cooperation?

Opinions?
 
Should police be required to wear body cams?

Data is still muddied as to whether or not body cams reduce police misconduct. I feel like it is a gross invasion of personal privacy but, if you can turn them off so, they don't roll when you're just eating lunch with your buddies or talking shop with the detectives, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. In my opinion, police should be required to fire their cameras up for all stops. That would prevent police brutality, bribes, cops confiscating contraband and pocketing it.

It could also potentially cut back on police, giving people breaks. Pull someone over for 20 over, with a body cam, would they be required to write them up for 20 over, and not bump it down to 15 for cooperation?

Opinions?

Yes they should. I'd go along with the idea of turning it off while on lunch breaks or talking to the wife on the phone but there's a very real risk of officers simply "forgetting" to turn them on when they're supposed. Curious do you feel the same about privacy with regard to cockpit voice recorders in aircraft?
.
 
Yes they should. I'd go along with the idea of turning it off while on lunch breaks or talking to the wife on the phone but there's a very real risk of officers simply "forgetting" to turn them on when they're supposed. Curious do you feel the same about privacy with regard to cockpit voice recorders in aircraft?
.

I'm not sure, I'd need some context to take a stance.
 
I'm not sure, I'd need some context to take a stance.

Oh okay.

CVR's - cockpit voice recorders - are one of the 2 "black boxes" (though they're actually orange) installed on all commercial aircraft - and some non commercial ones as well. The CVR records conversations not only between the pilots and ATC but also the in cockpit conversations between the crew (some of which is not work related).
So the same privacy issue you raise for police would certainly seem to apply to CVRs.
 
Oh okay.

CVR's - cockpit voice recorders - are one of the 2 "black boxes" (though they're actually orange) installed on all commercial aircraft - and some non commercial ones as well. The CVR records conversations not only between the pilots and ATC but also the in cockpit conversations between the crew (some of which is not work related).
So the same privacy issue you raise for police would certainly seem to apply to CVRs.

As long as nothing personal is used against them in court, I don't really see a problem. If they're discussing something that incriminates them, in their personal life, and it has nothing to do with flying planes, that should not be admissible in court, in my opinion. But, law's generally don't care about opinions.. If they tell their copilot they murdered someone, and the DA needs that tape for the murder trial, I mean, without a warrant, is that admissible in court?

I don't think I have as much of a problem with that. Pilots aren't as at risk for the common scrutiny that police are under when busting criminals who accuse you of illegal procedure and police misconduct. Pilots generally fly planes and land them without much of a fuss.
 
Privacy issue's aside,,

It will out a mis behaving cop..

It will also show just what kind of crap that the cops deal with on a day to day basis.. In the long run.. it will help cops more than hurt them. (IMO)

djl
 
As long as nothing personal is used against them in court, I don't really see a problem. If they're discussing something that incriminates them, in their personal life, and it has nothing to do with flying planes, that should not be admissible in court, in my opinion. But, law's generally don't care about opinions.. If they tell their copilot they murdered someone, and the DA needs that tape for the murder trial, I mean, without a warrant, is that admissible in court?

I don't think I have as much of a problem with that. Pilots aren't as at risk for the common scrutiny that police are under when busting criminals who accuse you of illegal procedure and police misconduct. Pilots generally fly planes and land them without much of a fuss.

Pilots of aircraft that are involved in an accident are subjected to a level of scrutiny that would make your hair stand up. Granted, assuming they survived, they usually aren't subject to criminal charges but the NTSB will turn their lives inside out looking for human factors that may have contributed to the accident.

Does not that same rational work about private conversations not being used against them work for police and body cams.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely yes. I think it would drastically cut down on misconduct and abuse of power. And that's desperately needed.
 
I think it should be up to the individual departments to decide because of the expense and resources needed to preserve and catalog that stuff so it is available if needed. One of the problems with dashboard cameras and traffic cameras is that the police preserve that which benefits them, but then very quickly everything else disappears. If they are going to be mandated, then the mandate should include the mandate that the footage be preserved.
 
I completely support requiring body cameras for police officers. It will not only cut back on police brutality, but it may even make those being arrested be less aggressive if they know they are being filmed.
 
Yes they should. I'd go along with the idea of turning it off while on lunch breaks or talking to the wife on the phone but there's a very real risk of officers simply "forgetting" to turn them on when they're supposed.

Maybe there can be some kind of penalty for that?
 
I completely support requiring body cameras for police officers. It will not only cut back on police brutality, but it may even make those being arrested be less aggressive if they know they are being filmed.

It does help reduce dishonesty from both sides.
 
Yes they should. I'd go along with the idea of turning it off while on lunch breaks or talking to the wife on the phone but there's a very real risk of officers simply "forgetting" to turn them on when they're supposed. Curious do you feel the same about privacy with regard to cockpit voice recorders in aircraft?
Maybe there can be some kind of penalty for that?
Anything not recorded should be inadmissible in court.
 
Should police be required to wear body cams?

Data is still muddied as to whether or not body cams reduce police misconduct. I feel like it is a gross invasion of personal privacy but, if you can turn them off so, they don't roll when you're just eating lunch with your buddies or talking shop with the detectives, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. In my opinion, police should be required to fire their cameras up for all stops. That would prevent police brutality, bribes, cops confiscating contraband and pocketing it.

It could also potentially cut back on police giving people breaks. And citizen's wouldn't like that very much. Pull someone over for 20 over, with a body cam, would they be required to write them up for 20 over, and not bump it down to 15 for cooperation?

Opinions?
I'm in favor of body cams. Last I heard, they do curb police abuses. It can also give police more evidence in court.

Privacy is probably the most serious issue, both for the officers and for people they encounter. There needs to be a viable system to protect privacy, and that seems to be a big challenge.

However, letting officers turn them on and off at will invites abuses. There have already been situations where officers turn off their cameras during problematic encounters. But yes, the public doesn't need to know what officers are talking about during their coffee breaks.

Storage is also an issue. Body cams would result in a lot of footage, which means lots of data storage, and a way to reasonably access and review it when needed.

I don't think these issues will be resolved perfectly. But I think overall, they can be mitigated enough to make the benefits outweigh the problems.
 
Yes, by all means, it protects both the cop and the citizen.
 
Should police be required to wear body cams?

Data is still muddied as to whether or not body cams reduce police misconduct. I feel like it is a gross invasion of personal privacy but, if you can turn them off so, they don't roll when you're just eating lunch with your buddies or talking shop with the detectives, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. In my opinion, police should be required to fire their cameras up for all stops. That would prevent police brutality, bribes, cops confiscating contraband and pocketing it.

It could also potentially cut back on police giving people breaks. And citizen's wouldn't like that very much. Pull someone over for 20 over, with a body cam, would they be required to write them up for 20 over, and not bump it down to 15 for cooperation?

Opinions?

I have never seen muddled data re cops and body cams. Body cams should not be used as a supervisory tool. I don't think there are plans to do so. It's the ultimate arbitrator, imo, only to be accessed in case of dispute.

Every cop, sooner the better.
 
I have never seen muddled data re cops and body cams. Body cams should not be used as a supervisory tool. I don't think there are plans to do so. It's the ultimate arbitrator, imo, only to be accessed in case of dispute.

Every cop, sooner the better.

Hey Maggie, good to see you in the arena again. Hope you had a good break.
 
Should police be required to wear body cams?

Data is still muddied as to whether or not body cams reduce police misconduct. I feel like it is a gross invasion of personal privacy but, if you can turn them off so, they don't roll when you're just eating lunch with your buddies or talking shop with the detectives, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. In my opinion, police should be required to fire their cameras up for all stops. That would prevent police brutality, bribes, cops confiscating contraband and pocketing it.

It could also potentially cut back on police giving people breaks. And citizen's wouldn't like that very much. Pull someone over for 20 over, with a body cam, would they be required to write them up for 20 over, and not bump it down to 15 for cooperation?

Opinions?

Why cannot this sort of tollerance and understanding of human nature be OK on camera?

Police Seargent; Why did you not use the full force of the law in this case?

Rooki; Well, on a down hill, with nobody else around at 2AM... easy to do.

Seargent; Good work.
 
Absolutely yes. There are disadvantages but I believe they are outweighed by the advantages.
 
Absolutely yes. There are disadvantages but I believe they are outweighed by the advantages.
That's the thing, nothing will ever be 100% perfect. There will be disadvantages, of course. Somebody somewhere will try to take advantage, and some will succeed. That happens even with out current system. The question is: Is the relative step forward a significant step? In this case, I say 'yes'.
 
Should police be required to wear body cams?

Data is still muddied as to whether or not body cams reduce police misconduct. I feel like it is a gross invasion of personal privacy but, if you can turn them off so, they don't roll when you're just eating lunch with your buddies or talking shop with the detectives, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. In my opinion, police should be required to fire their cameras up for all stops. That would prevent police brutality, bribes, cops confiscating contraband and pocketing it.

It could also potentially cut back on police giving people breaks. And citizen's wouldn't like that very much. Pull someone over for 20 over, with a body cam, would they be required to write them up for 20 over, and not bump it down to 15 for cooperation?

Opinions?

From what I read body cams greatly reduce police violence as well as violence towards police...
 
Lots of people do a better job when they know that that they're being watched.
 
Should police be required to wear body cams?

Data is still muddied as to whether or not body cams reduce police misconduct. I feel like it is a gross invasion of personal privacy but, if you can turn them off so, they don't roll when you're just eating lunch with your buddies or talking shop with the detectives, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. In my opinion, police should be required to fire their cameras up for all stops. That would prevent police brutality, bribes, cops confiscating contraband and pocketing it.

It could also potentially cut back on police giving people breaks. And citizen's wouldn't like that very much. Pull someone over for 20 over, with a body cam, would they be required to write them up for 20 over, and not bump it down to 15 for cooperation?

Opinions?




Yes. Should be universal. Will protect both citizens and cops.
 
Back
Top Bottom