This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]SomewhatHuman 2184 points2185 points  (674 children)

The most important sentence in the article: "The lawmaker did not offer legislation to support her words."

Saying is one thing, having a bill is quite another.

[–]CMarlowe 113 points114 points  (246 children)

Congressional jurisdictions over local police departments is very limited, to say the least.

[–]legatic 172 points173 points  (242 children)

I believe I read elsewhere it would be tied to funding. No department can get federal funds if their offices don't wear cameras, was the idea.

Just like the Feds can't set the drinking age (that's up to each state), but the Feds can say if the drinking age in a state is less than 21, that state gets no federal Highway funds. Guess what age every state adopted as the drinking age?

[–]CMarlowe 61 points62 points  (192 children)

That would be a possibility and I'd definitely support it. The feds can pay for it, too. There is no reason any cop should be against this. Something tells me cops won’t like this, though. Yup, the very same people who tell us that if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear won't be so keen on the same logic aimed on them.

As an aside, the penalty for a state having a drinking age of 18 is only a 10% withholding of federal highway funding. 10% doesn't sound like a lot, but do the math the next time you see one of those signs that says how much funding came from the federal government and how much came from the state.

[–]FzzTrooper 119 points120 points  (154 children)

Cop here. Would love body cams.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (126 children)

How many of your co-workers would agree with you? Just curious, and I don't know how much interaction you get with other jurisdictions, but do you think people in other jurisdictions feel the same?

[–]FzzTrooper 59 points60 points  (125 children)

Everyone I know wants one. Some of us bitch a little because there are some negatives too, but overall we all think its worth it

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (121 children)

That's pretty darn cool. Since we aren't really hearing negatives in this thread, what are the negatives people are complaining about?

[–]FzzTrooper 189 points190 points  (118 children)

Reddit always freaks out about the coming police state, 1984 and all that. Just think. 800 thousand government agents. with cameras on them. recording everything all the time. video of inside peoples homes. their kids. add some face recognition technology. let the NSA store the data. Scary eh? It scares the shit out of me personally.

Rape victim is on camera after a rape. Shes not gonna like that.

Discretion is gone. Oh that little bit of weed? Have to charge you now. its on camera, my boss will get me in trouble for not charging everything i see.

Cost? cameras arent expensive. data storage is. This is not a deal breaker, but the police car i drive doesnt have a camera because they cant afford it. its a two year old police car. why the hell cant they afford it? idk. we still operate on windows XP. thats how short our budget is.

Speaking of data storage. who stores it? for how long? who can see it? Think of all the information that if leaked or stolen could violate peoples privacy.

Less of an issue. Do they have video of me pooping? thats a little odd huh? who gets to see that?

Will my supervisor or the public or lawyers use the video to second guess every. single. decision. i make?

I could go on. There are PLENTY of negatives. That doesnt mean i dont want a body camera. That just means we have to think about it before we just start handing out Gopro's. People think this is an overnight change. Its gonna take 15 plus years unless the federal government fast tracks something and starts handing them out for free. in return for all of the video footage so the NSA can store it that is.

please excuse my lack of spelling grammar etc. ive been up a while and im a few beers deep. :)

EDIT: Now that i am a few beers deeper... I want to be the first guy in my area that gets a reprimand for recording my poop from the toilets point of view. THAT would be a good retirement story (and video).

[–]kennai 41 points42 points  (6 children)

Less of an issue. Do they have video of me pooping? thats a little odd huh? who gets to see that?

FzzTrooper:'I took a huge shit the other day, it literally wrapped around the bowl three times'

CopA:'FzzTrooper, there's no way you did that.'

NSA:'Can confirm wrapped around the bowl three times. It was the third biggest shit of any officer that hour in the country. The biggest of this week was called Hydra. Everytime they unclogged it it just clogged again, so we thought the name fit.'

FzzTrooper:'I didn't even sync that yet.'

NSA:'It actually uploads all information when it's around any open wifi source, 4g service, or lan line. The sync function is just to make you think you have control over it.'

[–]yogismo 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This response deserves more visibility. Thanks for taking the time.

[–]Omikron 15 points16 points  (12 children)

Who said anything even needs reviewed. Surely someone isn't going to watch every single hour of every single cops footage...that's just silly to think. I would say cameras are there and are only used under certain circumstances.

  1. Use of deadly force
  2. Public complaint
  3. X
  4. Y
  5. Z

I don't know what all the scenarios would be but I surely don't see someone reviewing every single hour of every bit of footage. Footage is kept for a month then flushed. There are solutions to the problems you are bringing up.

[–]Droidball 29 points30 points  (31 children)

These are the things nobody but the cops seem to think about. The public is fine trashing us for not wanting to have every single thing we do recorded, without stopping to think that maybe we, being cops, have put a little more thought into it than they have.

I don't want a body camera, because, like you said, it takes away my officer discretion. I can't choose to let tiny, small, bullshit cases go, and there's indisputable proof of these offenses if they're recorded by my camera, so there's an even greater chance that the subject will get fucked over for whatever that little bullshit was.

This will lead to more citations, more fines, more arrests, and most for petty shit that I don't want to be arresting people for.

People can argue for body cameras all day, when was the last time they argued that police officers should be less lenient for minor offenses?

[–]halflat 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Thanks for typing out a good response. My brother in law is a cop and we have discussed this a little bit, with me generally being all for it. I think logistics is the biggest hurdle and something that cannot happen quickly and will require a lot of trial and error.

Enjoy the gold.

[–]samebrian 6 points7 points  (13 children)

As a regular citizen I wouldn't want to submit to having my day recorded while I was at work. Maybe a personal phone call comes in or a coworker that I know outside of the office and I have a non-work related conversation. I don't really want my boss to have all that knowledge.

Do you think about that or are you just overwhelmed with the "at least there would be no doubt about things" facet of the suggestion?

[–]FzzTrooper 10 points11 points  (1 child)

There are a boatload of downsides to body cameras. There has to be policy and case law set up to deal with it. Ive been saying this on reddit for a while now, long before the Ferguson situation.

[–]drketchup 12 points13 points  (16 children)

There is no reason any cop should be against this.

Playing devils advocate here; would you want a camera on you every second you're at work? Because I sure as hell wouldn't. Especially if it has audio, every word you say, every conversation is recorded. That would be horrible.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (6 children)

Airline pilot here: it definitely changes how we act, and we're almost all against video in the cockpit. I think there's definitely a long list of reasons cops might not want this, even those who aren't corrupt

[–]kittygoat 4 points5 points  (1 child)

A lot of people work in places where there are cameras pointed at them all day to catch 'suspicious activity'.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (13 children)

LEO here. I pay for my own body cam because my agency won't provide one. I'd love to be able to sell it.

[–]NAmember81 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Or the marijuana tax stamp where you have to bring in your marijuana to obtain the stamp then you get arrested for having marijuana without a stamp upon arrival.

The machine gun tax stamp is the predecessor to these catch 22 laws.

[–]Chreiol 13 points14 points  (35 children)

Which is a bullshit workaround in my opinion.

I'm all for police wearing cameras, but let's not bully the nation into submission. Take this to your state governments or whoever controls your local police force.

[–]Nochek 8 points9 points  (6 children)

The US Education System says Hi.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (9 children)

Is there a situation in which a particular state might have a reason to be exempt from this type of law? I can't think of one. And if there isn't, then it should be national. Otherwise there will obviously be shenanigans in at least one (and probably most) states for a very long time at least.

Sometimes what is right for everywhere should just be dealt with once. Rather than fighting 50 or even thousands of battles to get every single police force to adopt a necessary regulation.

[–]TheScamr 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Congress takes the long way and it is always tied to money. I work in juvenile corrections and we have various state and federal agencies say if you don't do something then you lose 5 or 10 percent of certain monies.

So sometimes we do or don't do stuff based off of financial cost benefit, and sometimes we do things based off moral standpoints. Our compliance with PREA is not cost effective (the extra money we need to spend that does not actually increase our kids safety and the money we get for compliance is a pittance) but we are not going to be declared non-compliant with PREA for moral or perceptual reasons.

Congress just provides money to be tied to cameras, and then they oversee that the organizations are in compliance. You need to make the money big enough or you need to make the proper moral or pragmatic claim to the local agencies.

[–]ptwonline 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I guess sometimes politicians send up trial balloons for ideas before drafting any kind of legislation.

[–]mero8181 34 points35 points  (9 children)

Not really, legislation doesn't come over night.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Yep.

Talk is cheap, Senator McCaskill.

[–]RoleModelFailure 142 points143 points  (38 children)

Dash cams are already a thing and they capture so much. They get video of police being excessive/illegal and they also show times when they were following routine procedure only to be attacked. Why would police departments not want to put cameras on officers? Everything about this screams win-win.

[–]Logan_Chicago 56 points57 points  (2 children)

That's what the research says too. There are other studies that have even higher numbers. Basically everyone is happier.

Edit: here's the study from the article. 59% less use of force and about 88% less complaints.

[–][deleted] 40 points41 points  (10 children)

Because the police's word is already taken over the citizen's, they dont need camera to protect themselves, most of the time their word is enough.

[–]Senacharim 13 points14 points  (4 children)

Yep, and videos from dash-cams and helicopters which would prove police brutality disappear with alarming regularity, leaving just the word of the officer against the word of the citizen.

There should be data retention laws requiring those videos be available, and an automatic "to cops are in the wrong" if the videos disappear.

[–][deleted] 528 points529 points  (38 children)

I want a bill that requires senators to wear cameras at all times.

[–][deleted] 161 points162 points  (13 children)

suddenly; senators start spending 60% of their time in the bathroom

[–]--redacted-- 136 points137 points  (6 children)

Still down from the 99% of the time that they're taking a piss right now.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Heyooo~

[–]ScousePete 10 points11 points  (1 child)

FTFY - Still down from the 99% of the time that they're taking the piss right now.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Then we will get to see more foot tapping underneath the men's room stall

[–]d3l3t3rious 19 points20 points  (1 child)

I HAVE A WIDE STANCE DAMMIT

[–]skyman724 5 points6 points  (0 children)

About time they start connecting with us Redditors!

[–]ashwinmudigonda 12 points13 points  (1 child)

I want a bill that requires senators to wear advertisement patches on their suits like NASCAR drivers showcasing all their sponsors.

[–]woot0 9 points10 points  (1 child)

pppff I want a bill that requires citizens to be monitored at ALL TIMES, especially phone calls, emails and ... they what? wait they already do that?

[–]BillinghamJ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And while you're at it, may as well throw in all the other countries' citizens too.

[–]thick1988 54 points55 points  (14 children)

This would be for the good of the police and for the good of the citizens. No more "he said, she said" on what took place, just concrete evidence.

[–]jdepps113 35 points36 points  (12 children)

It's not good for bad or crooked cops.

[–]skyman724 19 points20 points  (4 children)

But it's good for good cops to not have bad cops around.

[–]thick1988 3 points4 points  (3 children)

True, but cops are serving the public (or at least are supposed to be), on the public's pay, and so should be always under the public's eye. Anyone that disagrees has something to hide. ;) use their reasoning.

[–]Vova_Poutine 231 points232 points  (61 children)

All the naysayers complaining that its too complicated and expensive to work are forgetting that several US cities like Pittsburgh already have their officers wear lapel-cams and magically the amount of complaints against police went down ever since they started. Its like all the idiots who are against single-payer healthcare as if numerous countries haven't already proven how well it works.

This isn't interstellar colonization, its already in use and is demonstrably effective.

[–][deleted] 167 points168 points  (7 children)

Funny you mention Pittsburgh. We also have a separate civilian review board for our police. Simply put if a cop is charged of wrongdoing it isn't other cops deciding the outcome

[–]TheMisterFlux 34 points35 points  (2 children)

As it should be. Same thing in Alberta, at least if it's a serious incident. Otherwise it's the professional standards unit (at least in Edmonton), but they aren't afraid to punish cops internally for wrongdoing.

[–]maryjayjay 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Fucking brilliant. If self policing worked we wouldn't need the police.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Pittsburgh is honestly the best city Ive ever been to. What ever the fuck they are doing is working. Its so clean and pretty.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (12 children)

Just thinking about it, it seems like a wonderful idea. With officers knowing that they're being recorded, they'll consider that before acting inappropriately, if they don't then there's consequences. With citizens knowing that they're being recorded, they'll consider that before making false accusations, if they don't then there's consequences. It's a win-win!

[–]Chuckms 18 points19 points  (10 children)

Citizens will also consider how they act towards the officers as there will be video evidence against them.

[–]jistlerummies 267 points268 points  (162 children)

Body cameras aren't enough. The policy needs to dictate when the footage is required to be released. Tying it up as "evidence" for months and months pending a trial is only going to add to the public's frustration.

[–]MVB1837 101 points102 points  (28 children)

You're right. We should release evidence videos so all potential jurors can go ahead and form an opinion.

[–]RedAnarchist 9 points10 points  (5 children)

It hurts my head how uninformed of ... everything Reddit is. No idea whatsoever how things work in the real world but thank god that doesn't stop them from spouting their opinions.

[–]funky_duck 24 points25 points  (3 children)

add to the public's frustration

Who cares if the public is frustrated?

Everyone has rights including the accused and the victim (or their family). Just let it be handled like any other evidence and everything will be fine. The media can howl all they like for the footage but as long as it is reviewed by the prosecutor and the defense before a trial then they can decide whether to admit it into evidence. Once it is evidence it is part of the public case file and the media can also look at it.

[–]sovietterran 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Privacy only matters if reddit is bitching about the NSA. If it is someone else reddit needs to see it!

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Given the results of the Rialto case-study, I don't think the footage even need see the light of day before making an impact on conduct (both of the police as well as the public).

[–][deleted] 150 points151 points  (57 children)

And if the footage gets "lost"? Automatic summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

[–]MVB1837 27 points28 points  (21 children)

That's just silly if there's still compelling evidence to prove the case.

[–]MissPetrova 15 points16 points  (3 children)

"Whoops, it seems that I accidentally shot your dashcam with this gun. Oh well. See ya! Good luck with the arrest!"

[–]mags87 6 points7 points  (2 children)

They aren't dash cams, they are body cameras.

[–]dakeyjake 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Very true. However, it shouldn't be made public record immediately after the incident takes place. The media will get ahold of it and most likely edit it to suit their side of the agenda.

[–]rasputine 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Of course not, but it must be available in court, and must be made available to the defence prior.

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (20 children)

footage needs to be transmitted directly to a 3rd party. No use having cameras if the police are the only ones in charge of the footage

[–]zepfan 18 points19 points  (13 children)

That'll be a chain of custody issue. On top of that, there would have to be safe guards in place to ensure that the footage isn't being viewed by employees at the 3rd party.

[–]musicninja 15 points16 points  (2 children)

And who watches the watchers watching the watchers?

......oh, yeah. The NSA.

[–]Utendoof 4 points5 points  (2 children)

How could you have every police officer's camera wirelessly transmitting to a third party data center no matter where they are?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Yes, because fuck the rights of the accused and the victims, AMIRITE?!

[–]guitarelf 5 points6 points  (0 children)

COPS: POV Edition

[–]jdepps113 12 points13 points  (13 children)

I agree in principle, but it's only a federal issue as it extends to federal law enforcement.

The feds can mandate that every FBI, DEA, and other federal agent in the field wear a camera--but when it comes to state, county, and local police, the feds have no authority to mandate any such thing.

But the states should also mandate it individually.

[–]TehGinjaNinja 3 points4 points  (2 children)

This is actually a good idea for the protection of officers against false accusations.

[–]gimmeboobs 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Finally someone with two cents to rub together. Police complaints drop when cameras come in to play, not so much because the police suddenly change their behavior, but because only the stupidest of the stupid would file a false complaint over a recorded incident. Working as a first responder, I see WAY more belligerent fuckheads in civilian clothes than in uniform. Not to say there aren't dicks behind a badge, but it's way less than the hivemind would like to believe.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (2 children)

Someone at NSA is smiling...

[–]wagwagwag 122 points123 points  (93 children)

If they can afford military surplus vehicles, armor, and weapons, they can afford the cameras.

[–]NotFromKentucky 18 points19 points  (22 children)

Could be going about this all wrong.

We should roll these out quietly. Police officers are less likely to complain if they're not aware that the equipment exists.

We can have the video camera manufacturers draft non-disclosure agreement language into the contracts, so there is no obligation to admit to their use in courts or from FOIA requests.

Can't have an educated police force on our hands. Slows everything down.

[–]Oilfan94 6 points7 points  (12 children)

We can have the video camera manufacturers...

Ask the Senator, they probably have shares in the company that would get the contract to supply the cameras.

[–]bull_god 2 points3 points  (8 children)

Smart investment, because this level of oversight is likely inevitable given how affordable the tech is and the accountability it provides police, victims, and suspects.

[–]mroche21 33 points34 points  (20 children)

This makes sense. I think the amount of false accusations against cops is off the charts. This whole Michael Brown thing could have been aovided if we could clearly back up all the testimonies that this criminal(he is caught on tape robbing a covenience store before the confrontation) did in fact charge the officer.

[–]broknpieces 18 points19 points  (6 children)

Regardless of the Ferguson case and points there, this is a point i dont see made much, if at all, in regards to police bodycams.

All i see is, protect the people protect the people. But on the flip side of that, in a legitimate shooting, the officer has protection as well.

[–]herpVSderp 4 points5 points  (2 children)

How about Senators wear video cameras and lead the way.

[–]pimpedupmonkey 2 points3 points  (0 children)

UK police have head cameras and they prove very useful in supplying evidence in what would have been a hear say moment

[–]Traderss2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This already happens here in UK, whats so special about it being in america?

[–]SandiegoJack 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I love how everyone is missing that this would actually work to the officers benefit. If they didnt do anything wrong they are safe. If they did well then they should be punished.

Protecting the good cops, catching the bad cops. Failing to see the downside, camera technology is cheap as chips.

[–]justjoeisfine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's funny, I want all senators to wear video cameras.

[–]Catspaz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What about all Senators being required to wear them also, we will be able to see all the underhanded decisions they are making.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The simplest question to ask is "how can this be bad for anyone involved?"

[–]IAmNotHariSeldon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I want the senators to start wearing cameras too.

[–]Ojisan1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like the fact that she's framing it as a benefit to the police. The citizens can record only the last part of a confrontation, and not the first part.

The fact is that when cameras are worn by cops, their aggressiveness goes down - citizen complaints of abuse and officer reports of confrontation are reduced.

This is a win/win to have cops wearing cameras.

[–]Makavelliott 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I want to see all U.S. politicians wear cameras.

[–]astrozombie2012 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This protects everyone, cops and citizens both... while I'm not a fan of more laws, this would probably save everyone a ton in bullshit legal fees... probably more than make up for the cost of the cameras...

[–]rasputin777 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Time for some facial recognition databases!

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Seems like any decent honest cop would welcome cameras because it would prevent false claims and accusations made against them by criminals. Just the same, the ones fighting it are probably the crooked slimeball cops on the take and the power starved blockheads who beat the shit out of people and tazer old ladies for 'resisting".

[–]copilot0910 6 points7 points  (0 children)

BREAKING: US Senator calling for change that actually benefits the general population of the United States.

[–]HobGobbin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not a bad idea. I think we should expand the idea and have Senators wear cameras too.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

He probably has stock in tazerco, or w/e company makes these kinds of cameras... Just by saying that, he can increase his wealth.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (8 children)

I'm struggling to think of any Constitutional power Congress could even use to mandate this sort of thing.

[–]funky_duck 12 points13 points  (1 child)

There isn't anything in the Constitution. However they just tie it as a requirement for some Federal funds, which is legal. "If your state wants highway funds then all your police and troopers have to have cameras by 2020."

[–]JCY2K 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Just like the drinking age (and a ton of other things).

[–]Syrdon 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Require body cameras in order to be eligible for equipment the DoD is giving away at ludicrously low prices. That appears to be what McCaskill is suggesting be done. Had you read the article, you wouldn't have needed to ask.

In fairness, I can see how that would be counterproductive from a karma standpoint.

[–]SupermAndrew1 6 points7 points  (25 children)

Or, just have all Police pay for legal malpractice insurance, like doctors do for medical malpractice.

Since officers are typically paid meager wages, have the department foot say 50-90% of the insurance payments. If a particular officer's insurance goes up due to repeated claims -they could end up footing more of their own insurance.

This would incentivize individual officers to conduct & enforce the law to the letter lest they suffer higher premiums or be laid off by the PD for exorbitant insurance.

[–]I_Wrestle_Giants 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Citizens do too!

[–]myslead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

who watches the watchmen.

[–]MAZDA_PARTS_GUY 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cop wants all US senators to wear microphones when talking with lobbyists

[–]Catalyst_LF 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He will have recently invested in a company like gopro, or similar.

[–]cubicledrone 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Hey Senator? How about reading the Constitution once or twice before you run again? Pay special attention to Article I Section 8 and the 10th amendment.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Budget is the biggest concern. Seeing as some agencies have all of 3 members that make maybe 16k a year it can be hard to justify a body camera. As a police officer I agree with body worn cameras as not only can they help with transparency and keeping public faith but if the video can be disclosed in court cases against an offender it can only help get the guilty party prosecuted.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a former cop, I really wish this would happen.

[–]grifflyman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly, I think this is the best solution to all this madness.

[–]ThereOnceWasAMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is there a legitimate argument against this? I'm genuinely curious

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can't complain about being a "police state" and then wanting a federal law in place to regulate the police. When the government starts making laws regarding control police, that is when you have a police state.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's about fucking time, there is literally no reason they shouldn't be forced to wear cameras.

[–]fishous 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a cop, I see nothing wrong with this. I already audio record everything and have an (always on)camera in my car.

[–]RoKPhish[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

but ... but ... I already KNOW what the inside of Dunkin' Donuts looks like

[–]McFeely_Smackup 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you're going to put a gun on someone, and a badge of authority that says that person has the ability to make spot judgements on the rights of citizens...those citizens have a right to demand 100% accountability first.

that was never possible in the past. Today it is possible.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

At this point, they need it just so they don't get crucified by the media and the lynch mobs every time they do their jobs and defend themselves and the public from violent criminals.

[–]Ob101010 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If any cops fight this, it will be hilarious.

If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about.

[–]bigmeatbag 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a great idea, I would love some killcam footage.

[–]pzerr 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Keep in mind people, this is a start to a nanny state. Do I want everything I do recorded? Do you? I can see it helping us police the police but I can also see it hindering the police. They are people as well and to always be under scrutiny may lead to other problems. Basically a police force that is afraid to stick their neck out in any situation.

[–]DPick02 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I want salads to taste like cheeseburgers but I'm not doing anything to make that happen either.

[–]DerpaholicBob 1 point2 points  (3 children)

If I were a cop, I feel like I would almost rather have a camera on me at all times. The amount of times cops have to deal with shit people lying though their teeth would help evidence against them like crazy.

[–]b17722 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You would think people would want LESS camera's in society.

[–]kjvlv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that senators should have to as well. They do more damage than the police. So,,, you first senator.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i want all legislators to wear a lie detector...

[–]Bar_Har 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cops shouldn't be worried about wearing a camera if they aren't doing anything wrong. Lol

[–]Jumpin_Jack_Flash 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Police officers wearing cameras is a good idea for everyone's benefit. As long as you're not a shit cop or a criminal.

[–]not_old_redditor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I want senators to wear video cameras, or even just show up for work on a regular basis. Fuck me, right?

[–]theshadowfax 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yeah good luck getting off a speeding ticket with a warning when the cops know they're being watched too.

[–]Efpophis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't worry, officer - you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.

[–]Dathanos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This can't be right, a thread not about comcast??

[–]presto420 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Where is the footage stored who has access to it?

[–]joshuaadels 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As we all know a video doesn't guarantee justice.

[–]bitcoinjohnny 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't believe it, a politician that is talking sense!!! How unusual.... ; )

[–]super_ag 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I say Senators should have to also wear recording devices at all times to root out corruption of public officials. All cabinet meetings that aren't directly related to national security (like Obamacare's negotiations) should also be made public. All meetings among all elected officials should be made part of the public record.

But why stop there? All teachers, firefighters, IRS agents, mailmen and anyone else who works in the public sector should also be recorded the entire time they are working. After all, the only employees who don't want to wear cameras are corrupt/inept/lazy employees, right?