Do you think it fair and constitutional to make police officers wear audio/video recording devices?
Yes, and yes. I think it's the only way to keep interactions between the police and the public from becoming he said/she said. Since there is no expectation of privacy in public, and the police officers are wearing badges and uniforms, I can't see the legal argument against it.
I agree and now that the tecnology is allowing it to happen I think it's a great idea. However conversations sake what about the privacy of the officer? His general conversations with coworkers or say they receive a personal phone call.
the likely hood is that they only turn it on during interaction with the public. if not, then that kind of sucks for them
There can be no expectation of privacy if you're working in a public position. I don't see how this is any different than having keystroke loggers on work computers.
i agree. certain jobs come with certain expectations of the employee. honestly i dont think its a big deal. they already have cams in the cars. and many cops say they are useful for training.
honestly i dont see how it would be unfair in any way. what exactly would be unfair about it?
Well think of it this way, if your employer made it mandatory that you wear a video camera on you at all times how do you think you would feel? Consider the pro's and con's. There are definitely a lot of Pro's but where does it stop.
its ultimately up to the employer. if you dont like it, look for another job. it really is a pro's and con's thing. how much does it bother you as an employee. no one is being forced to be a cop.
The difference obviously between an employee of a company and a police officer is that the PO is given authority over basically everyone he meets during the day. With this authority come a responsibility to uphold the law.
every day, when I clock in, there are cameras on me, with the exception of bathrooms and perhaps 1-2 other locations, I know that I am on video at all times,.... its never bothered me.
We look at this from a point of view as the society horrified of Police Brutality, but is this idea not also a public display of what could be classified as privacy. I do not disagree with this idea, however I do not quite agree with it. Like I said its all on the point of view.
the "badge cam" or what ever you wish to call it is just as much a defense mechanism for cops as it s the public,... if i were an officer on the street id happily wear one, certainly i would shut it off while at lunch, while using the restroom, or answering a personal phone call,... but just as you learn to instinctively check your gear, and turn on your radio, call in on duty etc,.. you turn on your camera,.... imagine if we had footage from a camera like this in the Ferguson case,... one way or the other the story would be told,... nuff said yes?
I think it is brilliant. After all, if they are not doing anything wrong, they shouldn't have anything wrong with it. It serves good for both the officers and the public.
I don't mean to sound rude, but they choose this field of work, just as soldiers choose to be soldiers. They choose to put every moment of their work day on display of public scrutiny, so why not have something to back them up so they don't get accused of wrong doing?
I'd go a step further and say other professions need to have the same thing. Teachers would be a good start, paramedics, politicians, and any other public service type employees.
There is no privacy at work. As long as they can remove it while using the restroom, that's the only privacy an employee should have while on the clock.
Am a little divided on the issue because even recorded events can be twisted and used against police officers and/or innocent citizens. However, considering the times we live in, if I knew police officers and they were of high character with a good record, and they voted yes on the issue I would go with their choice. Things that happened before the recording began, or that are out of range of the recording play into situations in ways that cannot be detected after the fact. Life is not cut and dry in a vacuum, but quite complex, and sometimes police officers have to make the best decision they can based on the information they have at the moment.
I agree with you I feel it is easy for a citizen to say yes to this however we are lacking intimate knowledge of the job and the pro's and con's they face. Also what about civilians privacy. What if you do something embarrasing and its now on camera
Yes, it is fair and as far as I know this kind of thing would not be a constitutional issue, but rather something left to the individual states and local governments to decide. Police officers volunteered for the job and should accept the responsibility to uphold the law. Sadly, many instances of police brutality and utter disregard for the law have occurred and probably will continue as governments gain more power. Recording the interactions between officer and citizen will help to "level the playing field" in the legal system.
This has nothing to do with the Constitution and, as a former Police Officer, I would have no objections; I would welcome it. This, however, is a prelude to more to come. Some questions though: How about the FBI, Secret Service and the many other Federal and State police agencies? Are such exempt and why should they be? Do we now install or embed cameras on paroles or suspected criminals or to those who may provide a risk? Do we install cameras on children to protect them? At what point are cameras installed on all citizens, for the common good. We have banned and vilified smokers for the common good, forced handicapped parking spaces for the common good. The list here is a long one and when the 'Common Good' is the objective how can any good citizen object. If he does, perhaps, it is he who is hiding something and should be investigated or scrutinized much like the IRS with the right wing groups. Be careful what you want for others to protect you, as others may deem you the threat.
Good points. It's always wise to find out where an action will lead.
Great answer! I though this would be an interesting top for discussion for I am pro camera for many reasons. Recently got accepted to the RCMP and will be leaving for training in a few months. I thought it would be good to hear different opinions.
Because police officers are public servants, there is no constitutional right that is implicated. Police officers do not have an expectation of privacy while acting within their official capacities. Everything that a police officer does while acting in his/her official capacity is a matter of public record and accessible to all citizens via the Freedom of Information Act. They definitely SHOULD wear audio/video recording devices to ensure that every citizen's constitutional rights, life, and liberty are protected.
by Jennifer Kessner 3 years ago
If you haven't kept up to date on the issues in Ferguson, here is a drastically simplified version of events:1. On August 9th, a St. Louis County police officer shot an unarmed 18-year-old young black man. 2. The officer shot him SIX TIMES. With a pause in between. The office shot twice,...
by ahorseback 5 years ago
Guess what ? Only a couple of them should be fired for abuse of power ? Gee , I'm just a poor white kid but I think that's a pretty good record ! And yet , there is a media driven and media fired culture-- That believe they are all Racist...
by Tijani Achamlal 7 years ago
Are police officers really that nice or is that guy who helped a homeless person an exception?We live in a society in which by you are judged by what you have and not by who you are. We usually look down on poor people and disregard the homeless. I'm usually only used to cops who ticket you and are...
by MysteryPlanet 3 years ago
Have you noticed police officers speeding, running red lights, failing to use turn signals...... tail gating, and generally breaking traffic laws? In my own experience I see this nearly every time I drive through town. Why do so many cops disregard the simple traffic laws that we must follow or be...
by Mike Russo 3 years ago
It's because of the "Use of Force Model" that has been adopted by law enforcement from the military Many cops across the country have been trained in this use of force model. It works like this. A cop approaches a suspect and gives the suspect some type of order. If the...
by Don W 5 years ago
Article: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/0 … ard-video/Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGIS1Knpvs0Why could three police officers inside a police station, not subdue a 17 year old girl without use of lethal force? Why did none of the officers present attempt to give medical...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|