Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bigfug" data-source="post: 4251049" data-attributes="member: 4864">Probably because they get written up for using the "f" word, or damn, etc even when talking amongst themselves. Bad command can make it so the cops don't like them for reasons you wouldn't expect. And the funny thing about data is, you can get the results you want, if you ask the right questions of the right people. The article you are using is 4 years old, and refers to incidents a decade old, which means the technology, policies and procedures you are referring to and using is likely closer to 15 years old. A lot has changed since then, but this stuff is ridiculously expensive and takes time to roll out in large depts. Budget constraints, training, training budget all add up, and it moves at the speed of government. I can tell you that most are now activated automatically, and activate all cameras in the vicinity if the lights are turned on, a gun lock is activated, a gun or taser is unholstered, another camera nearby is activated, or a collision is detected. They can be manually activated by an officer and it will trigger the others nearby as well. An officer has 3 cameras minimum that can and do record without their activation/interaction. They don't "choose" not to turn them on. Also, the info from your own linked article contradicts your statement that police are not in favor of them. It states no less than 3 times that police generally support them. "The George Mason study also described an unanticipated result of the cameras: Officers increasingly value them as a tool for evidence collection and protection. "You're casting a wide net and judging an entire group of people based on the actions of a few, which is ironic.</blockquote>

Verification