A Brief Note On The And Body Cameras

The social media and the public might want police body cam footage release but sometimes it might be to graphic or controversial. Police body cameras have been a topic since the incident with Michael Brown in august of 2014. Police shot and killed an unarmed individual in ferguson, MO, leading to many people wanting cameras on police. Whether the cameras are a good idea or not this paper will explore the facts and sides of police body cameras. Overall body cameras should be required Because they can save the lives of the innocent, keep innocent people from going to jail, and can help a case as more evidence.

A man walks down a road, and is confronted by a police officer wearing a body worn camera. The man and the officer exchange words, and soon after a physical altercation ensues. According to the man’s statement, the officer was out of line, assaulted him, and his privacy was violated by the use of the camera. The officer’s statement, however, said that he was trying to question the man about being intoxicated and the usage of vulgar language, when the subject then began threatening him and ultimately began the attack on him; the officer continued to state he used the minimum amount of force necessary to minimize the threat. The man was ultimately convicted by the video evidence. Police officers feel that wearing body worn cameras will provide all the necessary evidence in any given situation, and protect them from public scrutiny, while the public believes that their privacy is being violated, and at too high of a financial cost. Police officers and public citizens must each concede to find the truth.

Within recent years there has been much controversy surrounding police officers and whether or not they should be wearing body cameras to document their everyday interactions with the public. While the use of body cameras may seem to invade the public or police privacy. Police-worn body cameras will be beneficial to law enforcement and civilians all over the world. Police must be equipped with body cameras to alleviate any doubt in the effectiveness of officers. Law enforcement worn body cameras would enhance the trust of the public by keeping both the officers and the citizens accountable for their actions, providing evidence, and helping protect them from false accusations, while protecting privacy

In today 's society, one highly debatable topic is whether or not law enforcement agents should wear body cameras. Most cameras used by law enforcement agencies across the country record audio and video, therefore, the cameras see and hear nearly everything a law enforcement officer does. There are many advantages to law enforcement personnel using body cameras while on duty because it holds the officers accountable, is used to document the contact made between the officers and the victims and/or suspects, supports the “use of force” action, keeps the officers and citizens honest, and the videos can even be used for training for other officers.

The cameras are very small portable devices, it’s the size and length of a cigarette stick. The camera is attached to the police officers uniform and sits in a pocket. Usually police officers are required to wear this body camera while they are on duty. The cameras record everything that happens between officers and civilians. The Rialto Police Department was the first to actually use and wear the body cameras in 2012. They did a yearlong study to see the impact of police relations by wearing body cameras. One officer wasn’t feeling too good about this idea because he thought the cameras would be to punish them instead of helping them out. “During the first year after the cameras were introduced, the use of force by police officers reportedly declined 60% and complaints from citizens against law enforcement officers decreased 88%.” This was a yearlong study in which 54 officers had to

There is so much crime which occurs in our society today, which it is very difficult to put an end to it. But there is a thing which is common among these crimes which are the criminals. According to the article, "Police body Cams: Solution or scam? Nwanevu the author has stated many questions to which he gathers the responses from three panels who is Mariame Kaba a member of the Chicago antipolice violence organization, David Fleck a vice president and he is also a major manufacturer of the police body cameras, and Connor Boyack who is a president of Utah 's Liberates Institute. This article mentions the popular magazine such as Time magazine, this magazine reports that over a quarter of the country 's police departments are already testing or actively using cameras, including the NYPD and the LAPD (Nwanevu, 2015). Also the author Nwanevu states that The Obama administration has called for the federal funding to support the deployment of as many as 50,000 devices to state and local law enforcement agencies. The administration 's reasoning captures the perspective of most camera supporters. According to the status the usage by police officers will help sustain trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they interact with (Nwanevu, 2015). Reformers have suggested that the video could have gone a long way towards resolving the ambiguities of the Michael Brown case where eyewitnesses had given conflicting stories and also the death of Eric Garner according to

Body cams have the potential to provide more accurate evidence and depiction of the moment of police incidents.

Body cameras in policing are still new, but more and more agencies are beginning to implement this technology into their line of work. At first police officers were very hesitant to wear these body cameras because they were afraid they would infringe themselves and give away their own privacy. Later, as body cameras were beginning to see more use in the work place, officers began to realize that these very own body cameras that they once thought would only cause themselves harm would actual prove to be useful in a variety of situations. Some of these situations can be citizen complaints, to even backing up an officers use of force. Body cameras can be the one sole thing that can give

Walter Scott’s shooting by a police officer in April 2015 defines the racism in the American policing from a new perspective. In the incident, 33-year-old American police officer Michael Slager shot Walter Scott eight times in the back when Scott tried to run away from him. Slager had asked Scott to pull over because of some issues in the taillight of the car. Slager claimed before the court that he had to take this action because Scott had taken away his taser, and he was afraid that Scott might be a threat to his own life. However, later evidence from Feidin Santana, a passerby, revealed to the media a video that Santana had shot at the time of this incident. In this video, it was evident that Slager and Scott indulged in a little brawl before Scott tried to run away. Slager had his taser intact because the video clarifies that while tackling the dead body of Scott, Slager was seen handling his taser - it was not in the victim 's hands. Slager was dismissed with immediate effect from his post, and he was accused of murder (Infobase). The injustice of Walter Scott 's death clearly demonstrates that it is crucial for all police officers to wear body cameras. Police officers in body cameras will prevent violence between officers and civilians, hold officers accountable for inappropriate behavior, and serve as on-hand evidence for future judicial actions.

What is a body worn video? A body worn video, also known as body camera is a video recording system that is typically utilized by law enforcement to record their interactions with the public or gather video evidence at crime scenes, and have been known to increase both officer and citizen accountability. The idea is that a video camera mounted on an officer 's vest or uniform would provide an accurate, objective account of every encounter with a civilian. Ideally, the camera would discourage police misconduct while protecting officers against unfounded civil complaints of brutality or corruption. While the use of body cameras may seem to invade the privacy of officers and the public, officers should wear body cameras because playing body cameras could improve, accountability, behavior, use of force, evidence, and processing and editing.

The dispute of police body cameras truly hit the media hard this week. Blasting from the headlines all citizens were aware that Michael Brown was lethally shot in Ferguson, Missouri. This prompted officers to become fortified with body cameras. This technologically progressive world that we live in today has shaped a world of tweeting, posting and uploading. It’s about time that police departments take advantage of the tools accessible to them, especially with the advancement of equipment. The move forward in technology will help to alleviate speculation on any misconduct perpetrated. There now will be hard honest evidence of any crime committed against a police officer.

Do you think cops do their job the right way? Do you think cops could do their job better? In recent years more and more police brutalities have occurred from the death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, FL on 2012 to the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO on 2014. Many people now do not respect or trust the cops anymore because of the way that cops have been doing their job. What is one way that the cops can gain the respect of the people again. What is one tool that could help capture what a cop does on duty. Body cameras on cops should be enforced in America because the camera can prove which person is innocent and which person is guilty in a court of law, body cameras offer a safer community, and it keeps the cop accountable of the

With so many incidents occurring between law enforcement and civilians, it’s about time we have our officers wear body cameras. Law enforcement wants to use body cameras, many politicians are in favor for them, Civil-rights groups are advocating them, and communities that already have a strong police presence in their neighborhoods are requesting that the police get cameras now. With the uproar of law enforcement and the death of many black American’s, body cameras can be very useful. There is always that missing link when trying to put these horrible moments back together. Far too many times we end up with the suspect dead and only get one side of the story. With the use of body cameras, we can now get more insight on the events that happen (Boyd, 2015).

The debatable topic of police body cameras has an extensive history to it. There has been a demand for more police surveillance since the civil rights movement, but within the past six years the demand for the new technology of body cameras has grown far greater than before. A popular example of this is the death of Walter Scott by police officer Michael Slager. Slager said in his report that he had to shoot Scott because Scott had obtained his taser and was a danger to him, however a bystander released footage showing that Slager put his taser near Scott after he and Scott had a struggle, then unnecessarily shot Scott in the back eight times ("Police Body Cameras"). This example suggests that without any film of this scenario obtained by

I will identify the advantages of using body cameras as well as the drawbacks (Pollack, 2017). I will discuss if I was stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense would I want to be videotaped. If I was involved in a domestic violence incident would I want to be videotaped when the officers arrived? Then I will discuss whether the police should have the discretion to turn off the camera when they believe a person’s privacy is being invaded regardless of what the person involved thinks so.