I recall one city (Atlanta maybe?) who was one of the first to have mandatory, force-wide body cams on all the time. Accusations of police brutality dropped to 1/8th in short order.
Criminal: The cop was mean to me for no reason!
Cam Footage: Nope.
End of complaint. 🤭
iirc? At first the cops didn't like it, but that changed in a hurry. I honestly don't know why ANY city doesn't have cop-cam these days. It's cheap & reliable. MY idiot city has debated it for at least 6 years now...
If management wants to fire a cop for political reasons, they pull the body cam footage and go through it with a fine-toothed comb looking for pretexts to write up and suspend the cop.
For example, the part of Australia I live in has a massive issue with a certain demographic of Australians who are vastly more violent and criminal than the rest of the population. They have been given their own government funded legal service with lawyers available on demand.
In a typical arrest, a drunk, brain damaged ("organic brain injury" from drinking) cretin will be bashing a woman with a bottle or something.
The cop will arrive and the perpetrator will immediately get violent and fantastically raciest and abusive.
If the cop shouts or swears while he is being insulted and then attacked, that is grounds for investigation and suspension.
What you say? Body Cam footage should only be accessed during an investigation? This certain demographic has worked out that they can put in formal complaints on every occasion.
I have personally witnessed one of these 'people' resist arrest, attack the police officer, get tackled (I helped hold them) then put in cuffs and taken away.
The cop in question thanked me for my help and told me that he would not even press charges because it wasn't worth the paperwork. We did everything by the textbook, but he was not supported by management.
The issues with body cams is exactly the same issue with all kinds of pervasive surveillance. It is easy to abuse by first picking a target then finding some pretext supported by the evidence available. Even if it isn't enough, the process is the punishment.
Yeah, but in your example would a cop be less at the mercy of bullshit without the body cam? I'm pretty sure the only difference would be that the management bends over backwards to say "well, we can't prove he was rude to the abo, but we love those guys and we take diversity very, very seriously, and there were a bunch of other (equally frivolous) complaints made against him, soooo...."
What is better is if in a hostile environment like that cops own their own bodycams.
Footage can be produced to defend the cop, but not to support frivolous complaints.
Where the department owns the camera and the footage, the purpose of the camera is a gotcha to prosecute bad cops.
When the cop owns the footage, the purpose is to supply exculpatory evidence rather than manufacture a pretext to persecute.
it is exactly the same in city buses, for truck drivers etc. Driver facing cameras are specifically for shifting the blame to the driver so the insurance can then make it their fault and recover money. There is no other reason to have a driver facing camera.
I recall one city (Atlanta maybe?) who was one of the first to have mandatory, force-wide body cams on all the time. Accusations of police brutality dropped to 1/8th in short order.
Criminal: The cop was mean to me for no reason!
Cam Footage: Nope.
End of complaint. 🤭
iirc? At first the cops didn't like it, but that changed in a hurry. I honestly don't know why ANY city doesn't have cop-cam these days. It's cheap & reliable. MY idiot city has debated it for at least 6 years now...
I'll tell you why cops hate body cams.
If management wants to fire a cop for political reasons, they pull the body cam footage and go through it with a fine-toothed comb looking for pretexts to write up and suspend the cop.
For example, the part of Australia I live in has a massive issue with a certain demographic of Australians who are vastly more violent and criminal than the rest of the population. They have been given their own government funded legal service with lawyers available on demand.
In a typical arrest, a drunk, brain damaged ("organic brain injury" from drinking) cretin will be bashing a woman with a bottle or something.
The cop will arrive and the perpetrator will immediately get violent and fantastically raciest and abusive.
If the cop shouts or swears while he is being insulted and then attacked, that is grounds for investigation and suspension.
What you say? Body Cam footage should only be accessed during an investigation? This certain demographic has worked out that they can put in formal complaints on every occasion.
I have personally witnessed one of these 'people' resist arrest, attack the police officer, get tackled (I helped hold them) then put in cuffs and taken away.
The cop in question thanked me for my help and told me that he would not even press charges because it wasn't worth the paperwork. We did everything by the textbook, but he was not supported by management.
The issues with body cams is exactly the same issue with all kinds of pervasive surveillance. It is easy to abuse by first picking a target then finding some pretext supported by the evidence available. Even if it isn't enough, the process is the punishment.
Yeah, but in your example would a cop be less at the mercy of bullshit without the body cam? I'm pretty sure the only difference would be that the management bends over backwards to say "well, we can't prove he was rude to the abo, but we love those guys and we take diversity very, very seriously, and there were a bunch of other (equally frivolous) complaints made against him, soooo...."
What is better is if in a hostile environment like that cops own their own bodycams.
Footage can be produced to defend the cop, but not to support frivolous complaints.
Where the department owns the camera and the footage, the purpose of the camera is a gotcha to prosecute bad cops.
When the cop owns the footage, the purpose is to supply exculpatory evidence rather than manufacture a pretext to persecute.
it is exactly the same in city buses, for truck drivers etc. Driver facing cameras are specifically for shifting the blame to the driver so the insurance can then make it their fault and recover money. There is no other reason to have a driver facing camera.
And added bonus selling point, its a source of infinite entertainment
Bro cop cams are some of the best entertainment. Like, if it doesn't involve these fucks chimping out, some arrests are funny as hell.
i.e. "Get on your belly Mr. Pancake!"
My favorite is the weeb attacking the cops with his mall katana.