Arguments Against Police Ex

Although the cameras keep track of people for most of their lifetime outside their homes, the surveillance is necessary to regulate citizens and prevent them from doing criminal activity. Cameras control a large part of people’s lives, with purpose “to enforce good laws... to track the government’s political enemies, to gather ammunition for blackmail, and so on,” (Volokh 9). Cameras do not watch everyday activities to observe where one needs to go, but they are there to examine the cities for thieves and vandals. While these cameras appear in almost every part of the city, and people are unaware of what information of theirs is being taken away, the government or city does not scrutinize and judge people for everything they do. Unless a recent crime has occurred and the police requires its usage to track down the suspect, only then would a footage be released for the public regarding the criminal. Otherwise, other trivial and personal information about where one goes is not revealed. Whether the information is recorded or not, it does not affect the normal citizens who live in the area who have done nothing

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

In the aftermath of the Rodney king beating a lot of things changed with police on the field. “In the wake of the Rodney king case; cameras became standard equipment in patrol cars all over the nation” (Marcou). In doing this police now cannot cover up an incident that they were a part of. “As far as citizens recording police, there is still much disagreement about how it should be handled” (Marcou). Nowhere in the constitution does it say the citizens cannot film stuff that is happening outside their house. “When it comes to training, officers are told “have your camera going at all times. A professional police officer has nothing to fear from being recorded and always act as if you are being recorded, because in today’s world you probably are” (Marcou). Thanks to cases like Rodney Kings, law enforcement is much more aware of misuse of force in the field.

recording device to an officer’s person, society is able to cut out human bias, and reveal the true

Body cameras are proven to make policemen act better while they’re are on duty. “Police officers "tend to behave a little better"(Kon, Body Cameras for Police Officers). if they know their behavior is being recorded on camera” stated author Tsin Yen Kon. Police will act better cause they know they are being “watched”. Just like when a student has a parent to sit in their class, they act very well, police do the same. Police will also act right, because they don’t want to lose their jobs or get fired because some careless mistake that they made while on camera. “When police officers are acutely aware that their behavior is being monitored (because they turn on the cameras), and when officers tell citizens that the cameras are recording their behavior, everyone behaves better” (Knickerbocker). Brad Knickerbocker, the author, explains how both sides of the camera, police, and criminal will have an effect on their behavior because they know that they are being watched, and recorded. When people know they are being watched, it is like they get scared, because they don't want anything to be used against them. Although cameras will make police act better, people will still think that police brutality will still happen.

Following through the process of the criminal justice system, after being stopped by police officers, many individuals remain innocent of committing any crime and walk away from the situation without further questions asked. However, at this point, silence is not the answer. Alexander notes regarding the unreasonable searches, “Hardly anyone files a complaint, because the last thing most people want to do after experiencing a frightening and intrusive encounter with the police is show up at the police station where the officer works and attract more attention to themselves” (Alexander 69). Therefore, these countless searches remain unheard of by many because the innocent are too scared to come forward and tell their stories. Perhaps if the silence is broken, word of mouth would prevent others from being unlawfully searched and arrested based on no suspicion. This is not the case though; nevertheless, it is known that “the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) trains police to conduct utterly unreasonable and discriminatory stops and searches” (Alexander 70). The use of such searches and methods to determine whom

Historically speaking, authorities of the law were never in a position where their professional duties and their character as a public servant of the law were demeaned in a way that there needs to be constant surveillance of them and the people whom they come into contact with. There was never a need of documenting every encounter you had with a civilian before. In this day in age, things have certainly changed, and the past has always been something society likes to change and make better even if it raises concerns. Due to all the violent police stories that has surfaced in the past decade, the idea of having police officers wear video cameras as a part of their uniform while on duty has resulted in a radically divergent account of society’s future. The law may uphold cops to wear cameras while working, but is this really the best decision? This topic is very controversial and may create issues with cops and the civilians they try and protect in the future.

Because of the tender emotions attached to the deaths of people I custody, the violation of rights alleged to some police officers, or officer abuse by citizens these strategies pose some social risk. Police officers may not have access to a full range of social acceptance in some instances just because of the inflation attached to the events in other areas of the country. If the policy department publicly decides to speak ill of a policy to record all police interactions for any logical reason, there may be public backlash and labelling toward the Tempe police and those who support them. Theories abound in the media about the police supporting each other even when violating the law. Even though the Tempe police use body and dash cameras, rejecting more monitoring could seem suspicious to the public.

The cameras may offend some officers because it is like someone looking at your every move and judging you on how to do your job. Which is totally understandable but they must look at the big picture.

One potential problem lies in the ability to tamper with the recording equipment. If an officer has access to turn the camera on and off, the potential exists to essentially “edit out” unwanted portions of the encounter by turning the camera off. The same holds true for cell phones. With the ability to edit videos online, a person that wishes to show the “victim” in the most positive light edits out anything that would throw a negative light on the victim’s actions. Also, the angle of the video can vastly affect the perception of the viewer. How many times has a video surfaced in the media depicting the negative aspects of an encounter? Then, at a later date, a complete copy of the video or a video from a different angle surfaces and reveals that what was originally thought to be an episode of unwarranted use of force turns out to be a volatile encounter where the officer’s safety was at risk. Additionally, when the media highlights negative videos of police encounters, it raises citizens’ distrust of officers in general, regardless as to whether their local department was involved or not. This increased level of distrust, particularly in minority communities, can serve to heighten an officer’s unease about entering the community, even when responding to a call for service. This distrust increases tension between the officer and the community which can

Currently, the trend is when being approached by an officer or seeing someone being harassed the average person will pull out their cell phone to record the situation taking place. The social climate has shifted to one where much of the historic trust that has been put in police officers has become questioned following the events in Ferguson, Missouri, and Staten Island, New York (shah, 2016). For example the case of the shooting of Walter Scott. Walter Scott was pulled over for a broken tail light but ran from officer Michael Slager. The officer ran after him, and they had a small scuffle over the officer 's taser, but the victim continued to run away when the officer pulled out his gun and shot Walter Scott eight times. Once Scott was lying face down the officer called for backup and picked up an item from the ground which was found to be the taser and placed it next to Mr.Scott 's body. He planted his taser next to me.scott who was lying on the ground. The District Court for the District of Connecticut identified that the Circuit Courts of Appeals had been split as to whether or not the right to record police activity is a constitutional right that is clearly established such that it can defeat a claim of qualified immunity when an officer inhibits those actions (shah, 2016). When a video is recorded by a staff member during an active investigation that clearly shows the officer violating the victim 's

Thus, creating the cons of officers using a body camera. A big issue with the cameras have been about privacy and public exposure; "It is vital that public confidence in the integrity of body camera privacy protections be maintained. We don't want crime victims to be afraid to call for help because of fears that video of their officer interactions will become public or reach the wrong party. Confidence can only be created if good policies are put in place and backed up by good technology" stated Tami Abdollah, the author of Officers fear body cameras raise privacy concerns. The most concern with privacy is the fact that the officer recording the video from his body camera can share it with the public immediately after the encounter.

According to police, officers nobody has the right to record. Whether it is publicly, or an investigation being done outside on the street. Now a days we do not have the right to do anything outside in the public. My question is why? If we all have the right to do whatever we want. Many city journalists’ even people have been arrested for not even committing a crime but simply filming. You would ask me is this right? Well I would say no it is not right. According to the law which truly states (“Know Your Rights: Photographers.” American Civil Union. ACLU, July 2014. Web. 3 Sep 2014). That we all have the right to photograph, and film while being in public being anywhere and at any time. The video I selected talks about how a civilian is having a discussion with a police officer and how the police officer says he is not allowed to “film.” Watching the video made me see how police officers don’t respect at all. They tend to lie a lot and change everything around when another police officer comes to help them out. They harass and detain people with unnecessary reasons.

Many people out there in the real world is not going to be true full that why them police office need it for there safety because there camera they have i can video record every time they have to go deal with problems' many people have been dying in the united states because of the police officers just keep shooting them. Alot of cops these days are just going up to there cars and if they ask for they id they go to reach for

If I were stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense I would not have a problem being videotaped because if the encounter went good and I wanted to file a compliment on the officer and the officer’s supervisor would be able to view the video and see why his officer was complimented (Pollack, 2017). On the other hand, if the stop went bad either way and I filed a complaint the officer’s supervisor would be able to review the video and determine who was at fault and the appropriate actions could be taken.