Body Cameras: Continuous Policing

Over the last few years there has been much controversy leading up to the need for law enforcement officers to wear body cameras. This is not only for citizens but also for the officers’ protection. With so much debate regarding police brutality and excessive force body cameras are quickly on the rise. New technology is giving police on a state and federal level a new opportunity to cut back on some of the allegations and negativity we have seen in the last few years. On the other hand it is giving citizens all over the country the safety they should feel when being approached by law enforcement. Our technology has improved significantly over the years and this seems to be something that will benefit everyone.

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

If police wore body cameras the people could see what goes on in their day, not just the ugly parts that the media shows. Police officers are just people like everyone else, but they have a job and that job isn’t the most appealing. But not all of them are evil. If they wore body cameras, we could see their interactions with other officers and the public. We associate the police with being pigs and bad people, but it’s

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

Video Footage has the potential to expose officer misconduct and exonerate civilians whose actions have been falsely accused by officers. In the case of John Crawford III, going into his local Walmart, just wanting to spend quality time with his family roasting s’mores. Officers had over 200 video cameras showing he wasn’t doing anything wrong, but they refused to look at them. Even though he had an unloaded pellet gun that he picked up off the shelf. Why shoot, instead of tasering him. (Harvard Law Review N.A., 2015). Even with some witnesses around that still didn’t stop New York Police officers from using excessive force on Eric Garner. His death was recorded, and the officers were indicted. There are many cases where officers are accused of excessive force such as PEOPLE vs ATKINSON. In cases such as this, there are officers stating force was necessary and defendants saying that unnecessary force had been used. The use of cameras helps to determine without prejudice and protect all

Today, law enforcement agencies, or more specifically police officers, are under constant scrutiny from their peers as well as outside sources. Many of these problems arise from how the police treat and deal with these citizens. There is however a solution to these problems, which can not only improve officer safety, but can also protect anyone else that the officer encounters. The solution to this problem is officer mounted camera systems, or better known as body cameras. These body cameras capture almost everything an officer see’s as well as hears. This allows for protection against a police officer as well as protection for a citizen who was scrutinized for something he or she might have done or not. Body cameras are ever increasing in policing and have many benefit’s as well as draw backs.

Cop cams are small, pager-sized cameras that clip on to an officer 's uniform or are worn as a headset, and record audio and video of the officer 's interactions with the public (Lenese 126). The idea of these body-worn cameras is that they are to record all activity an officer should partake in for the duration of their shift. That means even when they are in the station doing paperwork or even in the patrol car getting to know your partner. If the cameras do not record continuously, officers could control them at

Police officers should wear body cameras at all times on duty because it creates more evidence. Body cameras document everything from witnesses,victims,and suspects. “Perceived benefits that body-worn cameras offer—capturing a video recording of critical incidents and encounters with the public, strengthening police accountability, and providing a valuable new type of evidence—largely outweigh the potential drawbacks. (Ziv). This supports the argument because body cameras will be able to record any incidents and report them with the public. This quote support my big argument because only the officers and the victims knows what going on in a situation. This quote supports the position because now there will be clear evidence in certain

In todays society, American citizens are unpleased with the law enforcement officers. These officers are here protecting the people of America, and to get the people doing the wrong things off the street so the rest of the people can be safe. In the past few months, there have been shootings of American citizens, and shootings of law enforcement officers. The people of society are only seeing the bad side of police officers, and never understand the whole story when needed to be heard. As the internet continues to expand, the promises it makes is beyond human understanding (Carr 56). The internet and television are the most complex form of technology, and only portray the bad side of cops. “The idea of multimedia is to combine text, sound, and pictures in a single package that you browse on screen” (Gelernter 97). The idea of body cameras put in the uniforms of the law enforcement officers has been talked about, so that everyone can see the exact truth of the situation. The idea of body cameras for the law enforcement officers has it benefits and drawbacks. I think having the body cameras will greatly benefit the law enforcement officers in society today and in the future.

Cameras are already attached to the dash of the police officers vehicles but they only capture what is in front of them. The cameras don’t film the whole picture

In my personal opinion, the usage of body worn cameras in law enforcement have been very beneficial for officers, lawyers, judges, solicitors, and the public as well. I agree, some officers tend to forget to activate and deactivate their body worn cameras before and after they have made contact with the citizens. As you stated in your passage, many law enforcement agencies have implemented a policy to govern their officers when they fail to follow their body worn cameras protocols. These implementation is the most effective way to assure that law enforcement officers are not thoughtless when it comes to activating their body cams before they interact with the public.

Police body cameras are becoming more common in major cities around the us, and are meant to lower aggression and complaints brought upon the department's. Though the cameras are only becoming a big topic there have been many studies and debates in whether or not the cameras should be mandatory for all departments. The main and most talked about disadvantage of the cameras is the questions it raises about privacy of cops and the public. On the other hand one of the upsides are how much they will help in court cases by lowering costs and time spent. When in court the cameras can either show is it is a case of police brutality or if the cop handled the situation properly.

It’s also a concern that officers will have the ability to change the video or their reports based on the videos if they are allowed to review them before filing reports. It is feared that officers will have more control over what happens with the videos, where they end up, or alter them in any way, consequently putting someone else’s innocence in jeopardy. A way to prevent these events from happening, it is expected to put some limitations officers have with their body cameras. For example, the camera can be deactivated when interviewing a victim of sexual assault, to maintain the victim’s privacy. The officer will have complete control over when the camera is on and when it is off.

A lot of articles that you come by while surfing the internet may look really good. Then if you actually read and look into the article it turns out poorly written, with grammar and spelling problems. However, the article done on police body cams was an exception. The article contains over 2000 words and has a great format with magnificent facts stated. It gives the pros and cons, and then analyzes both sides in many paragraphs. The writer provides both an interesting, yet factual article on whether or not police body cams should be a requirement for all the departments in America.

These types of devices would help show an omniscient side to a very chaotic situation. In an article titled “Police Use New Technologies to Fight Crime” by George Avalos, a business reporter for the Bay Area News Group who covers the economy, jobs, PG&E, Chevron, financial companies and commercial real estate, Mr. Avalos discusses the new technology that is used in the police force by the officers. This article also hits home on the idea of attaining body worn cameras for all police departments because of the benefits of wearing body cameras. When talking about these new technological devices, the article ends by stating that “license plate readers, facial recognition technologies, [and] videos from body cameras, coupled with street cameras and drones, could be aggregated into huge databases that can enable law enforcement to improperly gather information about people's habits and destinations” (Avalos). Being able to compile all of this information could help uncover secret operations, such as drug deals, and could potentially catch wanted criminals or future criminals. Having body cameras that have facial recognition would help the police identify people who may not have a valid license on them. On the other hand, police officers can abuse the very thing that could also make their job easier. Many police officers may use these devices as an intimidator. Emmeline Taylor, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at City, University of London, states in her article “Police Detainee Perspectives on Police Body-worn Cameras”, that some police officers can abuse the technology that is available to them to prevent something; “While [the use of BWCs has] been encouraged to assist in reducing racial profiling in stop and search, they could produce other types of discrimination, such as being used to intimidate and record in