Body Cams on Cops? A good idea?

I would have loved wearing a body cam back in the days when I worked the street! It would have mediated some angst I had with the administration. Especially when the bad guys declared I or one of my fellow deputies I was working with "abused" the bad guy and/or deprived them of their rights. But then again, that was back in the day when most folks who went to jail knew what they were doing would lead them to at least a night in jail, knew they were going to jail and fessed up to the fact that they deserved to go to jail. Back then most of those folks accepted their fate. For the most part they knew the rules and respected the rules well enough to know that if they violated those rules they were going to go to jail. Fights, they happened. Sometimes they evolved to "difficult arrests", "face plants", "leg sweeps", mace/pepper spray, nightsticks, hair holds, or worse... and if those tactics were used they were only employed when necessary. I've never had any of those folks file a lawsuit against me or any of my compadres for that matter, though I have had them threaten to sue me until they sobered up or otherwise realized their lawsuit wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in court.

It's funny how this whole "body cam" thing that these folks wished for and got is backfiring in their faces . They've finally realized these body cams are providing very good evidence against them and they were instrumental in insisting that this very productive and accurate law enforcement tool was provided to the law enforcement community. I personally thank them for their contribution to ensure our law enforcement community is equipped with and trained in the use of equipment that will provide accurate, honest, timely and professionally collected law enforcement information that, in the past was rarely collected.We, the taxpayers are providing the video/audio recording equipment, the training associated with it, good, trained, experienced police officers and their protective gear to use and effectively apply it and now the good evidence that leads to acquittal or conviction to our law enforcement so we can ensure all of our constitutional rights are being fully represented, respected and protected.

If you ask me the use of these cams provide us, the taxpayers a great return on our investment!

It's a wonderful idea. Keep the cameras. Insist the officers review the footage and audio recordings of their respective "incidents" that were recorded and insist those officers use that information in any of their reports to provide a more accurate depiction of the event(s) that prompted their response and subsequently occurred during the officers response, including any arrest(s) made.

The lawyers and social activists like black lives matter, etc. want these body cams to ensure proper policing and public safety. As a citizen, I thank them for that. Many law enforcement officers wear them today as a result and as a former cop I wish I had the opportunity to wear one throughout my career as well. Let's continue to use these body cams to ensure the arrests made are necessary and proper arrests and the accuracy of the reporting process is enhanced, at least.

Let's err in favor of more accurate reporting and more effective law enforcement.


IMHO

A Huntington Beach, California Police Shooting.

I received this information re: an officer involved shooting that's been partially videoed  by an innocent bystander. The confrontation allegedly started prior to the videoing of the incident.

According to the information given, A Huntington Beach Police Officer encounters a subject at a local 7-11 store in Huntington Beach, CA and during the encounter a fight ensues between the two. The officer and the subject somehow go to the ground.

The bystander who videoed the remainder of the encounter was waiting for someone else in a parked car in the store's parking lot. He/she started videoing the ground encounter on his/her cell phone.

In the initial footage of the video it's apparent to me anyways that the officer is trying to gain control of the subject's arms. The officer is on top of the subject and appears to have one of the subject's wrists somewhat restrained while trying to gain control of the other one. The subject who is on the ground, on his back beneath the officer appears to remove something from the officer's duty belt with his right hand. The subject also appears to look at it and appears to show it to the officer. It even appears the subject tries to employ whatever he removed from the officer's duty belt against him. At the 014-017 mark in the video the officer appears to recognize a threat from the subject and the object removed and disengages himself from the ground fighting. The officer pushes the subject's head away and stands up, drawing his sidearm as he stands.

Once the officer is standing and has his sidearm drawn he appears to step away from the subject all the while giving the subject verbal commands.The subject appears to ignore the officer's commands, stands up and starts towards the officer with the object in his right hand... the subject even looks at the object.

With his sidearm pointed at the subject the officer gives the subject more verbal commands as the subject continues towards him, closing to well within fifteen feet of the officer. The officer eventually employs lethal force and subsequently neutralized the perceived threat.

The six million dollar question is what did the bad guy take out of the officer's duty belt?!

I'm thinking it was a knife or at least the officer thought it was a knife.