> Other is full recording of what happened from the officer's point of view.
Ironically, the security cameras on people's private property that cops are choosing to put tape over before possibly committing crimes are closer to "full recordings" than what body cameras offer.
Body cameras are sold with features that cops and their bosses like, like features that exist for the purpose of keeping the public from accusing cops of violating their rights or worse.
That means that many body cameras are designed to only record short 30 to 60 second segments of video after a cop feels that "something bad" might happen to them. Many of the cameras also come with convenient on and off switches, too, and some come with features that allow cops to delete videos.
All of the reasons are silly, but in order of most to least reasonable:
* Recording officers creates a permanent record of their identity which causes problems for undercover operations.
* Bystanders who record the police frequently interfere (directly, physically) with police actions and can put themselves or others in danger.
* Recorded video is frequently edited to create misleading narratives and spurs nuisance claims against the police.
* The police are themselves required to jump through all sorts of due process hoops to surveil people, so they should benefit from the same protections while on the job.
(Incidentally: all these reasons are probably true; they're just wildly insufficient to restrict video recording).
police officers have a hard and dangerous job to do and they do it for our safety. if they have to worry about being video taped all the time they will be less effective in this job.
Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police, anyone standing in an enclosed structure on private property where police activity was occurring and occupants of a vehicle stopped by police as long as recording in those instances didn't interfere with police actions.
Maybe someone can correct me or give a little more details, but I'm under the impression many communities have tried to make recording police officers illegal.
Police officers have a lot of discretion and I'm not sure that a camera is always the best way to get preferential treatment within that discretion. It may be legal but in addition to the courts recognizing it as acceptable officers need to do the same. A court decision will not change the perception of recording among officers but hopefully as more people exercise their rights it will become commonplace and not stigmatized by the police.
Because recording police is justified by "we're both in public, and I should be able to record public things", which justification applies equally well to police using cameras in public.
Right, but it does help them keep videos from being spread as easily if they get taken down. It sure does seem like the only reason cops ever get punished is public pressure, which relies on people seeing the video.
This does not excuse or allow the frequent and extreme violence that is perpetrated by police on unarmed citizens, which is the reason they feel the need to document their experiences with officers.
Even with the use of them, the release of them is often blocked or their existence is denied.
From the above article: " In Baltimore three years ago, one of the devices caught a police officer as he planted drugs at a crime scene; he was later convicted for fabricating evidence. After Rayshard Brooks was fatally shot by a cop in Atlanta on Friday, body cam footage of the incident was quickly released, and the officer was fired. "
And think about it the other way too: A police officer should want to be recorded while on duty and interacting with citizens. No more false accusations of police brutality, etc. The recording doesn't even have to be public - just available at a moment's notice by court order at least.
If cops are required (maybe by mechanical/tech constraints) to record via the body cam, that does remove some of the incentive for them to tell others not to record them. There's already a record of them.
Because being recorded can have a chilling effect on speech. Officers recording a peaceful, legal protest could exert undue influence on constitutional rights. It’s a reasonable concern.
More cameras is not always good, even in public and even if legal.
reply