I reject the notion that you can't advocate one thing unless you also advocate related things. We don't need a holistic approach to everything.

You all are debating whether or not the cops want body cameras. Who says they should have a choice? The fact they do is a problem.

That sentence implying that things like segregation and poor education quality are outcomes of violence rather than causes was really off putting.

I do agree that it helps a movement's legitimacy to cite good actors, but that can be risky, especially when you lack the capital and organization to really do your due diligence.

no, we basically all agree on that. the last page or so is nothing more than chez being chez, in his own uniquely baffling way

This seems like an insane thing to believe, considering that there are probably like 50 people on earth (exaggeration) who are doing bad things, believe that what they are doing is bad, and continue to do it anyway. It is fundamentally against human nature. Even most sociopaths probably dont really fit into that category in the sense that they really think its wrong. It seems odd that you think 100% of these callous-but-shockingly-introspective-and-egoless unique individuals happen to be in law enforcement.

Though I agree it would probably be a nice job for one of them.

He's the only one being realistic and pragmatic about the issue, and you are mocking him while being extremely childish and naive about it. I mean your position really seems to be "who cares what the police want, just make them do it" which has worked approximately zero times ever and has very, very little chance of working here.

By FAR the best chance of implementing mandatory body cams in the near future would be by changing police department opinion about the value of mandatory body cams. It is not close. And you think its a waste of time to even discuss it....because you just place your faith in the iron will of politicians and lawmakers or something? Its not clear how you actually picture this change happening. Maybe Twitter? Talk about baffling.

This seems like an insane thing to believe.

I actually don't care whether they think their actions are justified, well I do but it's secondary, I care that they know their actions are being recorded.

For instance in the Huff Post on the recording of police interviews

This suggests that knowing their actions are being recorded alters the police behaviour, it also suggests that they know the techniques they use when the cameras aren't on are wrong if they don't know they are acting wrongly why would they act differently when they are being watched?

Why just wearing body cams and trusting cops to use them properly isn't good enough.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...P=share_btn_tw

Did you read that?

It says that while off duty, a positive in itself is not a violation if a firearm is discharged.

Police are allowed to have a few beers when they are home and off duty. Cops also have the right to defend themselves like everybody else.

If a cop gets drunk watching the game and empties his clip on the porch in celebration: ............... illegal

If a cop is drinking watching the game and three guys bust in his back door and come after him and he defends himself: .............NO violation.

Trusting them to use them isn't enough. Needs to be misconduct for failing to use the equipment (preferably criminal if it's deliberate).

Did you read like 5 posts after this one where I admitted I made a mistake?

Right, but that's not going really going to square with your earlier point about cops wanting body cameras to clear themselves from false accusations. Virtually no cop union/bargaining unit is going to advocate for that trade off anytime soon.

It all has to be done legislatively. There's absolutely no will for police and police unions to do it themselves. Case and point, they still don't have body cams in St. Louis after one of the highest profile police killings ever.

The silver lining though is that some people are stating to get it. From yesterday:

They use cameras to record every protest though because "they need a record of the events"...

What? There are numerous examples of police officers lying and covering up their own deeds because they knew they might be caught.

It does square, it's just a bit more complicated. The police are going to argue against these rules but that opens up a compromise position with the unions which would be far weaker if the cops didn't see the benefits to them of the cameras. Imposed or not, it may well be that in practice the rules on use follow later - it's real world politics, we're not designing the perfect system with an installations date.

We haven't even touched on the other concern which is use of the data. I argue the relevant members of the public should have a significant degree of control over that data (certainly full access to it for their legal team) and the police should be heavily restricted on their use of it subject to court authority. Not sure we will ever get that far but it's interesting (to me anyway) that when cameras used to come up it was 'big brother' that was the main concern of the public. Like the above I expect the police will see the benefits of the data and any protective laws will lag a bit.

The compromise position is going to be they will use the cameras if they feel like it with no sanctions if its not done legislatively.

There are quite a few police agencies using cameras so one could assume unions already are signing off on it in a number of areas.

If that includes all being issued with cameras as standard then it's a major step forward.

If they regularly fail to use them while doing their worst then that will be easily exposed by the public use of cameras and pressure will build for more rules.

With criminal penalties for non use?

That's fine, I just think its naïve to think that cops are going to see enough of benefit of an increased use of cameras to agree to criminal penalties for not using the cameras.

We seem to agree. I don't expect the police to agree to criminal penalties or even misconduct come to that. They will increasingly agree to cameras though.

Which is not the same thing.

Couple updates to this ****ty story.

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsb...olice-shooting

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/us...t-to-back.html

http://www.stlamerican.com/news/loca...bf77f9387.html

The reason im involved in this discussion is because i fundamentally disagree with the premise that police will ever embrace bodycams due to the idea that its for their own protection. It is of course an important caveat for lobbyists, one that i am nearly certain they have tried to employ in their efforts(which, may i remind you have utterly FAILED so far), but seriously, the only way to "win over hearts and minds", so to speak, is through a complete overhaul of police staff and training, and i dont see any of you geniuses talking about that