http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1236666--toronto-police-tavis-stop-of-four-teens-ends-in-arrests-captured-on-video
Boogie, this brought up a question on reddit about why cops don't/wont have cameras and mics on them at all times. I'm interested in hearing your feels on the matter.
Sorry for the delayed response, dude. I've had a crazy-ass week. Allow me to put my Loki-hat on.
Anyhow, the truth is, from my observations of discussion in the police officer community, we are quite torn and ambivalent about the idea of officers wearing cameras and mics.
Those in favour of it seem to have the attitude of: Bring it on! It will vindicate our perspective that most cop controversies exist because the accused can bullshit his side of the story with impunity, and that most youtube-style videos tend to be selective and leave out the whole incident/broader context.
Those opposed to it point out the various ways in which there are complications with the concept. Although I am personally still somewhat undecided on the matter, I will detail the opponents' position more fully.
The problem/skepticism for this idea from police officers partially comes from the fact that the advocates of the idea tend to come from the extreme police-hating elements from the internets. There are two purposes for putting recorders on cops, and they both have problems: they can be for purposes of "reliable" evidence collection, and/or they can be for purposes of accountability/scrutiny of police actions.
For the first, the question boils down to what sort of expectation of privacy a population has. It seems to me that the sort of people who demand every cop to be wearing recording equipment tend to be the same people who object to the "surveillance state" ala Britain. What is the difference between having a plethora of static surveillance cameras on every street corner and having your every interaction with law enforcement video recorded? Do people really want their domestic issues recorded for posterity by police? Does a sexual assault victim want her every interaction with an officer audio and video recorded, from the moment the officer meets her? Is it reasonable for the public to have EVERY interaction with a police officer recorded? What if you're sent to calls in the middle of the night to citizens with undisclosed mental health issues? People who are otherwise functional during the day, but have this little secret that they are otherwise able to hide from their peers? What about people who have alcohol issues?
but this leads into the main issue with the idea:
IF you proceed with putting recorders on every police officer: MUST the recorder be on ALL THE TIME, or does the police officer have the ability to turn on/off the recording according to his/her own will, or according to some sort of department policy?
If the answer to that is the former, then those who advocated for the idea will (as they are wont to do) scream BLOODY MURDER, because every time an officer has their camera off, they will cry "CORRUPTION" or "BRUTALITY".
HOWEVER, if the answer is the latter, that still brings upon its own problems. The first is what I mentioned before, the possible violation of privacy interests of all the everyday citizens that police officers interact with, and especially those who are victims of sensitive crimes. The next is confidential informants. How do you maintain the integrity of confidential informants if a police officer is recording every minute of his shift? Either you record a meeting with a CI, thus exposing the CI to risk, or you shut off the camera, only you are not allowed to do this, thus causing the anti-cop brigade to scream bloody murder and corruption.
Now, some of the anti-cop crowd will object to that point, saying "bu-bu-bu, it's really only plainclothes officers who have CIs". To which I respond "---the fuck you say?!" But, even so, that brings up the next question: Do ALL cops wear this recording equipment? If yes, then that presents some difficulty to plainclothes officers whose job requires them to stay covert most of the time. Might be a bit harder to do if they are required to wear high-quality audio and video equipment on their person. If no, you are allowing for a huge gap in your "officer accountability" regime.
And the final complaint, if "required" to have recording equipment on at all times is the human element. I know it's hard to believe, but cops are people too. We're allowed lunch and coffee breaks. We have down times of just patrolling or sitting in our cars with another officer. What if we want to shoot the shit with our friend when no one else is around? We're first responders. Black/dark humour is a fact of life of first responders. It is both a coping mechanism and enhances camaraderie, but it goes out the window if everything you say is recorded. What if you're sitting in your cruiser on a slow night and your wife/girlfriend calls your cell phone with some urgent personal issue? Maybe she's pregnant, maybe she's had a miscarriage, maybe an ex-boyfriend is stalking her, maybe there's one of a thousand things that the officer would rather not have a permanent recording of.
Now, to that last paragraph, the response of recording advocates is usually: "tough shit, you're a police officer and this is the standard of accountability we require." To which my reply is usually "Fuck you, I'm still a gawdamned human being, and nothing will satisfy you anyway because of your inherent bias".
In conclusion: It
is a complicated issue that even many police are divided on. However, it seems to me that those who are the most firm in advocating for it also tend to be those who have no fucking clue what a police officer's job can really consist of.
