Putting body cameras on police officers often increases tyranny. In particular, applying 24⁄7 monitoring to foot soldiers forces those foot soldiers to strictly follow protocol and arrest people for infractions that they wouldn’t otherwise. In the 80s, for example, there were many officers who chose not to follow mandatory arrest procedures for drugs like marijuana, because they didn’t want to and it was unworth their time. Not so in todays era, mostly, where they would have essentially no choice except to follow orders or resign.
Seems like the question is whether the average cop is better or worse than the written law. If better, remove the cameras. If worse, keep the cameras on.
Putting body cameras on police officers often increases tyranny. In particular, applying 24⁄7 monitoring to foot soldiers forces those foot soldiers to strictly follow protocol and arrest people for infractions that they wouldn’t otherwise. In the 80s, for example, there were many officers who chose not to follow mandatory arrest procedures for drugs like marijuana, because they didn’t want to and it was unworth their time. Not so in todays era, mostly, where they would have essentially no choice except to follow orders or resign.
Seems like the question is whether the average cop is better or worse than the written law. If better, remove the cameras. If worse, keep the cameras on.
Any cite or evidence that this is the case? My understanding is that body cams are controlled by union rules and only used for investigations.
Officers still have the ability like always, to selectively enforce laws against the under classes.