12 ms·

I think half of the police force should be 'armed' with nothing more than cameras. Arrests are not necessary in the vast majority of situations police are call

• logfromblammo 6y ago
  How about a body cam system that automatically switches to RECORD whenever a weapon or tool is removed from the belt, and cannot be switched back to STANDBY until everything is back in its place?
  • cwkoss 6y ago
    Important to consider privacy around record retention, but I'd love if cops badges were like taxicabs: they are only on duty and supported by the force of law when the light is on and recording is in progress. Ideally, there would be 3+ cameras on the cops body to get a more complete perspective of situations. Needs systems to limit access to any footage that is not concerning a criminal complaint, but existing cryptographic technology can make it so only the courts have access to the encryption keys if implemented with the right process and key management systems.
• mythrwy 6y ago
  I like that idea. It will cost more but what if we pair cops with non cop observers or participants? Like someone trained to talk with people and asses rather than just bust heads. Maybe it could even be volunteer sign a waiver and be a community observer? Or jury duty style even. Then, if head busting is actually needed (and sadly occasionally it is, please don't be naive) the head buster is on hand. But it should be much rarer. Something like balance of power in government to prevent one party from doing whatever it wants. That is what seems to be what is missing in police work. It's all one sided and few checks and balances.
  • rabidrat 6y ago
    Maybe you are using 'head busting' metaphorically, but no one needs to have their head actually busted, unless what they need is to be dead. In which case, the cop needs to kill them, with their bodycam on, so the inquest can be clean and proper (which is another issue entirely, sadly). This idea that beating people is acceptable law enforcement procedure is ludicrous and part of the problem.
    • mythrwy 6y ago
      Yes metaphorically. I should have been more clear. "Use of force" would be a more appropriate term.
  • cwkoss 6y ago
    They don't even need to be paired. The majority of police could be unarmed and armed cops are only dispatched for calls where necessity of force seems likely or when unarmed cops call for armed backup. Considering how much is spent on weapons training, this would likely be a net cost reduction. "Camera cops" could probably be paid less because they would have less risk of being in violent situations, don't have mental anguish of making life or death decisions daily, and less animosity from the community.
• chrisco255 6y ago
  Cops carry guns because the situation can always get out of hand. Violent criminals still exist in society. EDIT: the ignorant people claiming average police officer does not deal with violent criminals have obviously never worked as a first responder. They deal with rape, suicide, murder, assault, domestic abuse, robbery, every week unless they're some small town cop in a gilded neighborhood. The cops in St. Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, etc, see it every single day. I hear a lot of suggestions by people have have never done the job. People making spurious claims about what police do and don't deal with on a daily basis. I would never support female cops without firearms, for example. A grown man can easily overpower any woman, period. Especially when they are tweaked out on drugs. Cops carry a gun because they have less than 6 seconds to respond to deadly situations that can save lives.
  • rabidrat 6y ago
    If the system worked then you could argue that cops have a reasonable right to be armed. But the system is not working, and 10x people without guns are killed by cops, than are cops killed. Plus whenever a cop is actually killed, the entire system has their back, and justice is almost always served. This is not the case for people without guns who are killed by cops. It's an acceptable loss that a few more cops are killed because we don't arm every single one of them, if it means that a lot more innocent people aren't killed by cops with an itchy trigger finger. Sorry, cops. They've had decades of chances, and this past weekend proves that cops can't control themselves even when they're being called out by the thousands who are recording their behavior for all to see. So now they will have to earn the right to carry lethal weaponry.
    • HALtheWise 6y ago
      Can you provide a citation for the 10x number? A quick search shows more like 0.4x, which is quite different.
      • rabidrat 6y ago
        From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_office...: > According to the FBI, which publishes the data in the Uniform Crime Reports, from 1980–2018, an average of 85 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed per year. Those killed in accidents in the line of duty are not included in that number. From https://www.theroot.com/here-s-how-many-people-police-killed-in-2019-we-think-1841183889 https://www.theroot.com/here-s-how-many-people-police-killed...: > In all, there were 1,112 non-suicide-related deaths at the hands of police in 2019
• sremani 6y ago
  It only takes one violent engagement for life to end. As long as #2A is there, you have to give cops firearms to protect themselves.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• mulmen 6y ago
  I like the reference to a camera as a weapon. It should be used with some discretion, especially by police.