Discussion for article #242615
I find it amazing that employees who are paid by the taxpayers have decided that they are so special that they should not be accountable to their employers. Many of the so called reasons sound more like excuses than reasons. I suspect the real reasons is to avoid getting caught screwing off on the job and covering their collective butts. They work for the American public and area accountable to them. We as a nation seem to forget that if you are a public employee you work for âwe the peopleâ. When you decide that you want to hide what you are doing one might begin to think you are up to no good.
17 Likes
Iâm sorry - I really could not care less that wearing body cams might âhurt employee moraleâ among cops.
Memo to cops: If your poor widdle fee-fees are going to be hurt just because you canât be a big bully anymore, then GET OUT.
Signed: YOUR EMPLOYER (thatâs me, and every other citizen who pays your salary).
18 Likes
Translation: Itâs so much harder to beat and/or shoot people with impunity when youâre being recorded.
7 Likes
Why in the hell does the department get to decide. We need a federal law: every level of publicly funded law enforcement wears body cams whenever on the clock!
11 Likes
Well not to pick on the law enforcement folks Iâd like to see that anyone carrying a weapon wear a body cam.
7 Likes
Having first hand experience with East German and Soviet border guards, I can attest that the latter probably wouldnât have required body cams. Not necessarily a friendly bunch, but certainly way more professional and knowledgable than what I am used to from US border officials.
Thatâs an interesting approach. Too bad it wasnât the case when law enforcement decided that flawed as they might be Speeding Camerasâ were the way to go. The advantages out weighed the disadvantages and all that. But for these guys it has to be perfect or its a no go. Fuck them. They work for the public and in America that public is their boss. Put on the fucking cameras on them and stop allowing them to blow smoke up our asses. We know why they donât want to wear them.
6 Likes
operating cameras may distract agentsâŚmay hurt employee moraleâŚmay be unsuited to the hot, dusty conditionsâŚquestions their effectiveness and calls for more analysisâŚnot only complicated, itâs also expensive
Pitiful whining upended by this:
NEW ORLEANS â Three days after a 6-year-old autistic boy was killed and his father wounded when marshals opened fire on their vehicle in a Louisiana town, authorities have arrested two of the four officersâŚSpeaking of the body camera footage that was recovered from the officers, he said: âIt is the most disturbing thing Iâve seen, and I will leave it at that.â
CBS, this morning, reported the officers involved fired more than 18 rounds and that the 6-year-old was struck by more than 5 bullets. The childâs father had no outstanding warrants and it is suspected one of the officers had a personal grudge against the childâs father.
6 Likes
âIt needs more studyâ is the refrain of people who desperately donât want something to happen but need a fig leaf.
6 Likes
I can certainly understand that it must be a bit off-putting to have to wear a camera at work. I would hate it. But the worst thing that I do at my work is check facebook once in a while or maybe commit a typo. I donât kill anybody. These cops have brought it on themselves. We simply do not trust them anymore. Itâs sad, but it is true.
9 Likes
âgrowing number of police forces that use the devices to promote public trust and accountability.â
⌠???
"It said widespread distribution might hurt morale because employees could interpret the cameras as a show of distrust. "
PleaseâŚ
Nothing wrong with every citizen being surveilled, but law enforcement? WaaaaaaaaâŚ
5 Likes
It is absolutely a show of distrust. Cops are killing people - unarmed people - a lot. No, the public does not trust you.
5 Likes
Letâs run this âleakâ up the flagpole and see if we can get away with not being held accountable to taxpaying citizens/civilians.
1 Like
-
"Putting these in place, as you know is complicated âŚ
See above photo
and itâs expensive."
There isnât a spare dollar in DHSâ budget of $41.2 BILLION for FY 2016. -
âCameras⌠may be unsuited to the hot, dusty conditionsâ
No one has ever successfully filmed anything in a desert.
(BTW: Soldiers use them in Afghanistan and Iraq with no climate problem.) -
âWidespread distribution might hurt morale because employees could interpret the cameras as a show of distrust.â
Their feelings are of paramount importance.
Well, Iâm convinced. Arenât you?
26 Likes
The fact they are trying to block use of cameras shows that there is a great need for them to be used.
4 Likes
âIt said widespread distribution might hurt morale because employees could interpret the cameras as a show of distrust.â
Aww, donât take it personally! Itâs not you as a person we distrust, itâs your whole profession. Thatâs something your various law enforcement union officials, and your staff committees, might want to think about before they get all jacked up and spew nonsense.
2 Likes
Body cameras are proven to reduce the number of violent contacts with citizens by police.
Any law enforcement agency unwilling to wear them must be hiding their violent conduct.
3 Likes
It isnât the Mexican âinvasionâ that we ought to be worried about, itâs our own people on this side of the border that are the scary ones.
How do you start one of those petitions again? Is it MoveOn?