Other police departments across the U.S. are also now testing body cameras. Amid protests following the lack of indictments in the Garner case, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announced in December that his police department was accelerating efforts to equip all its officers with body cameras as well.
More departments are testing the use of body cameras around the U.S.
Of course, body cameras create some thorny privacy issues, such as whether police need consent to videotape activities on private property. Some officers also view the cameras as unwanted scrutiny and a sign that their supervisors don't trust them.And the fact that a witness used a phone camera to record New York police arresting Eric Garner in July didn't prevent the injuries that led to Garner's death a short time later, nor did the footage lead to indictments for the officers involved.Still, among the police departments that have experimented with officer-worn cameras, early results have been encouraging. A 2013 study found that public complaints against police officers in Rialto, California, plunged after the city's 54 frontline officers began wearing video cameras. Use of force by Rialto officers also declined in the months after the cameras were introduced.
Police officers didn't want to wear body cameras because they felt that their unions didn't trust them.
Since August, more than 150,000 people have signed a petition on the White House's website urging that all state, county and local police be required to wear a camera. In response, Deputy Assistant to the President Roy L. Austin Jr. expressed support for the proposal while saying the Department of Justice is researching the best way to implement video technology into daily policing.Read MoreAs Austin noted, a 2013 report by the Department of Justice found that "both officers and civilians acted in a more positive manner when they were aware that a camera was present."
Officers and civilians acted in a more positive manner when they were aware that a camera was present.
Video footage captured may help speed up court proceedings by providing indisputable proof of situations. This may lead to a reduction in court expenses due to an increase in pre-trial plea bargains or possibly an increased rate of convictions.
Video footage can help speed up court cases and expenses will be reduced.
The necessity to record every interaction with residents is bound to minimize complaints about police officer behavior and the unnecessary use of force, because interactions are captured for everyone to see.
People will complain less about officer's behavior because the cameras will capture everything for everyone to see.
A police department in Rialto, California has been wearing body-mounted cameras that records everything that happens between cops and citizens. During the first year after the cams were introduced, the use of force by police officers reportedly declined 60% and complaints from citizens against law enforcement decreased by 88%.
Less crimes are happening between police and citizens when body cameras are worn.
May help prevent and de-escalate confrontational situations between officers and civilians. May help provide valuable evidence in obtaining accurate witness and victim statements.
The body cameras will show more than what an officer's car can.
The difficulty in indicting and convicting police officers illuminates an uncomfortable truth of the criminal justice system: There is an enormous divide in the standards of justice we apply to cops as opposed to all other citizens.
Citizens aren't receiving the same justice as police officers are.
And when you’re the party in power, and the system is already stacked wildly in your favor, fairness may be the last thing you want.
Since police officers has power, the system is already in their favor.
It’s pretty easy to understand why the police unions don’t want their members watched: Between objective evidence of encounters that do happen, and the huge decline in brutality that is deterred by the very presence of cameras, all of a sudden, the system might just become a lot more fair.
Police unions doesn't want their members to be watched because they know that the system would become more fair.
People aren’t complaining about police abuse at random; citizens aren’t just making these grievances up.
People aren't complaining about nothing. They aren't making up the fact that police officers are abusing their power.
The theory behind the use of body cameras is that video evidence will provide us with some objective truth about what happens in violent encounters between civilians and police.
It is said that citizens around the U.S. are much safer when police are wearing body cameras. The cameras will provided all information about what happens between people and officers.
Money should not be a deterrent, Curtis said, adding that the unrest and disruption that has broken out in Ferguson has proven that "the cost of public trust is priceless."
Officers are losing communities' trust because the the brutality that is being done.
Police departments that equip any of their officers with body cameras need make sure "there's a clear understanding of when people are going to be taped," by both the police force and the community to avoid this breakdown of trust, Wexler said. "Giving cameras to everybody is just a mistake."
Departments should have guidelines for when the cameras should be recording.
Both studies noted that both officers' and citizens' behavior was altered when they were aware of the cameras. "You'll be amazed at how people stop acting badly when you say 'this is a camera,' even if they're intoxicated," said one officer who participated in the Mesa study.
Behaviors by officers and citizens have shifted once they knew that body cameras were recording.
A body camera recording "would have provided so much more information in the Ferguson case, and we could have possibly had a different outcome and not the additional distrust in the system," Curtis said
The Ferguson case wouldn't have went how it did if a body camera was present during the crime. More information would have been provided on the case.
Curtis told NBC News that he is fighting for cops to wear body cameras in order to hold them accountable. Witnesses, he said, would also be more careful about their testimonies if they knew those accounts could be verified or discredited. A body camera recording "would have provided so much more information in the Ferguson case, and we could have possibly had a different outcome and not the additional distrust in the system," Curtis said.
Witnesses would tell more what they seen instead of lying if they knew that a body cameras was recording the incident.
Individual video cameras will "improve transparency and accountability in order to protect those on both sides of the lens."
Hillary Clinton believes that the cameras will help to protect both the officers and the communitites.
Officers should be directed to turn on the devices more frequently when engaging with suspects, and less often with victims and informers, the report said.
This is the right thing to do.
At the same time, the inspector general, who is part of the city’s Department of Investigation, recommended stricter limits on recording certain groups, including sex-crime victims, abused children and informers.
Why limit the recording? A crime is a crime and it should be exposed to the world. People need to see what's going on when there is no one around. In other words, the full truth.
The current guidelines require an officer to record when there is “reasonable suspicion” of a crime. But the report said that threshold was too limited and could miss key moments preceding a street encounter.
The cameras should always be on record because things can go from nothing to something major like death.
It is especially important that body camera policies be public because the nature of a police officer’s job means that he will often see citizens at tragic and embarrassing moments. There is an understandable concern related to the release of footage involving not only victims of crime but also children, accidents, and the inside of private residences, hospitals, and schools.
Body cameras can release footage involving many different people and not only victims.
Police body cameras raise privacy concerns. The indiscriminate release of body camera footage could have a devastating effect on the victims of crime. Those crafting police body camera policy have to effectively balance privacy with the desire to hold police officers accountable for their actions.
c
While it is the case that police body cameras cannot conclusively be shown to improve citizen or police behavior this is not in and of itself an argument against the use of police body cameras. Body camera footage has proved valuable in investigations into police misconduct.
Body cameras play a major role in investigations into police misconduct.
It’s no wonder. Lean finely textured beef brings down the cost of ground beef by about 3 percent, which can add up quickly in a program that feeds more than 31 million school children each day.
Lean finely beef costs 3 percent less than ground beef, which can feed more student; so, schools are adding more lean finely textured beef.
Thousands of schools across the U.S. rushed last year to stop feeding their students meat that contained the ammonia-treated beef, known by industry as lean finely textured beef.
Many schools throughout the U.S. stopped feeding their students lean textured beef.
profligate
recklessly extravagant or wasteful in the use of resources.
“Moreover, it would allow farmers to make a decent living while giving consumers access to healthy, fresh food at affordable prices.”
Local foods are affordable to consumers and benefit farmers.