4 ms·

> Its not in any cops's interest to have all their actions even in the heat of the moment put under a microscope. Honest police may feel it's in their interest

> Its not in any cops's interest to have all their actions even in the heat of the moment put under a microscope. Honest police may feel it's in their interest. It protects them from false accusations, and from leal and reputational consequences of being associated with dishonest associates. Being honest, they might also want to see dishonest, criminal actions stopped and punished.

taurath 11y ago
To play devil's advocate: if I were the most decent nicest cop in the world I could see why I wouldn't want my every word and action on camera. It'd severely limit things I could say in confidence to anyone, and if I were say speaking to a victim of a crime its difficult to comfort people with a camera in their face. I'd be worried to being reduced to essentially the role of a call-center employee with every interaction graded not only for not screwing up, but also adherence to rigid policy. Its dehumanizing and eats away at the core of any intelligent person wanting to ever be a cop.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  These concerns are spurious. You describe situations in which most cops, "nice" or not, would simply turn the camera off. Other situations include using the restroom or making personal phone calls. No one ever said the camera had to be on all the time; how would that even be enforced? The camera should be on in any situation that might later be a subject of dispute. If it's off in such a situation, the courts should consider that a reason to disbelieve the cop who turned it off. A cop who doesn't possess the judgement to operate a camera, probably doesn't possess the judgement to carry a firearm either.
- newman314 11y ago
  Well, given the mandate by some police departments to only hire the less intelligent... I subscribe to the notion that cops absolutely need to be held to a higher standard, esp. given their potential for exponentially causing harm (because guns and LE powers).
  - newman314 11y ago
    Not clear why I'm getting the downvote here. Is it because I didn't cite a source for the line around hiring practices? [1] http://thefreethoughtproject.com/court-police-departments-refuse-hire-smart/ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/court-police-departments-re...
kps 11y ago
> Honest police may feel it's in their interest. Yes. I choose to have a dashcam in my car; it has once proved me not at fault, but if I screw up, it could equally prove me at fault. I think it is in my interest because I think it is overwhelmingly likely that the truth will be in my favour.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  As a private citizen there is no expectation that one will have a dashcam, so with discretion it would be possible to benefit from good driving without being penalized for bad driving.

taurath 11y ago

To play devil's advocate: if I were the most decent nicest cop in the world I could see why I wouldn't want my every word and action on camera. It'd severely limit things I could say in confidence to anyone, and if I were say speaking to a victim of a crime its difficult to comfort people with a camera in their face. I'd be worried to being reduced to essentially the role of a call-center employee with every interaction graded not only for not screwing up, but also adherence to rigid policy. Its dehumanizing and eats away at the core of any intelligent person wanting to ever be a cop.

jessaustin 11y ago
These concerns are spurious. You describe situations in which most cops, "nice" or not, would simply turn the camera off. Other situations include using the restroom or making personal phone calls. No one ever said the camera had to be on all the time; how would that even be enforced? The camera should be on in any situation that might later be a subject of dispute. If it's off in such a situation, the courts should consider that a reason to disbelieve the cop who turned it off. A cop who doesn't possess the judgement to operate a camera, probably doesn't possess the judgement to carry a firearm either.
newman314 11y ago
Well, given the mandate by some police departments to only hire the less intelligent... I subscribe to the notion that cops absolutely need to be held to a higher standard, esp. given their potential for exponentially causing harm (because guns and LE powers).
- newman314 11y ago
  Not clear why I'm getting the downvote here. Is it because I didn't cite a source for the line around hiring practices? [1] http://thefreethoughtproject.com/court-police-departments-refuse-hire-smart/ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/court-police-departments-re...

kps 11y ago

> Honest police may feel it's in their interest. Yes. I choose to have a dashcam in my car; it has once proved me not at fault, but if I screw up, it could equally prove me at fault. I think it is in my interest because I think it is overwhelmingly likely that the truth will be in my favour.

jessaustin 11y ago
As a private citizen there is no expectation that one will have a dashcam, so with discretion it would be possible to benefit from good driving without being penalized for bad driving.