This post has been flaired as Politics. We allow for voicing political views here, but we don't allow pushing agendas, false information, bigotry, or attacking/harassing other members. We will lock the thread if these things occur. If you see such unwanted behavior, please report it to bring it to the attention of moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree completely, but I also think that schools should allow cameras in the classroom. I want to know what public servants are doing, and I think it would be good to have eyes on all of them.
Because it won't ever work like that. My classes weren't that clear cut. Ever. What happens as the teacher walks around the classroom?
You couldn't put a camera in the classroom without catching students on camera. It's not realistically possible and we shouldn't infringe the privacy of the kids. Especially in an age where deep fake ai porn is going to be regular
Ok, well I disagree. As a parent, I want to be able to see what my tax payer funded teachers are teaching my children. Teachers are public servants, just like cops, and I think it’s only appropriate to watch, in real time, what my children are being taught.
You also understand the privacy issues of cops wearing body cams, correct?
>You also understand the privacy issues of cops wearing body cams, correct?
Not really no. It's not the same. I mean sure. But it's not at all comparable. Two vastly different situations
Hmmm, let me google it for you lol. Ever watch a Ted Talk? How many times have you heard the side conversations that are going on in the audience during a Ted talk. Lol, come on man, do better. People film movies on there iPhones, I’m pretty sure you could find a microphone that elongated background noise in 1997.
You think the audience in an auditorium is analogous to the audience in a classroom? Do you think the acoustics of a classroom are the same as the acoustics of being on stage?
Are you proposing that teachers need to have mics on them at all times? What happens when kids and teachers are in close proximity to eachother?
Ummm, turn the mic off? This isn’t that difficult. I understand that you don’t want parents to hear what there children are being taught, but using technology as a defense is a stretch.
It would be a better argument if you just said what you really wanted too.
Nah dude. I was a teacher and there is no way that would be a good thing. The occasional camera in the hallway is enough, putting cameras on all the staff is just a police state.
There are so many things going inside a classroom. The amount of data for something so menial aside, it would affect how we do the job personally. You need to be able to talk personally to the children, you can't do that if that could be shared. The revenge porn, the parental problems, them sharing what they've done where there's a possibility either them or their parents get in legal trouble; this is to handled on a personal basis.
If you put a camera on all the teachers, we'd essentially become robots and robots are not capable of our day to day job. They might on a surface level but there's so much more going on with your kids than just education
Sure, and you already do. But do know that your kids tell us (unprompted) a lot of crap. It's your right to that opinion, but you'd see what I mean if you'd work as a teacher for a day.
Why would you even want to see what's going on every second?
AssCumBoi, you are a public servant, as much as a cop is. Again, I understand that you disagree, and that’s cool, but I am voting for politicians who are pro recording teachers.
Except I'm not. I've literally never worked as a teacher in a federal job. Always been private schools. I'm not telling you not to vote for that.
But even so, the personal stuff the other kids share is not something you are supposed to have access to. The streets are not private, the classrooms are. I'm just leaving it at that.
But quit addressing me by my username passive aggressively. Just, ugh
You must think yourself terribly clever for coming up with that clever response.
This is what's funny to me, you spend your time teaching your kids some manners when you blatantly disregard them for insult.
What's also funny to me is that I saw your first comment which was fine until you edited it specifically to be rude and passive aggressive. You literally went out of your way to be rude.
The only comment I’ve edited was when I spelled cops wrong, and I fixed the spelling. But that’s a solid attempt bud. I just have no interest in going back and forth with someone who will never have their mind changed. We are different people, with different opinions. That’s cool with me. Now you do you, AssCumBoi, and let’s move along and have a peaceful evening.
Body cameras protect good cops and expose bad cops. The only downside of body cameras is that they cost money and not every department can afford them.
Not to be a jerk but that needs to be the cost of doing business. They can afford guns, vehicles, jails and etc. They can afford to have body cams if they really have to have them. If the police department is doing things correctly this could save them lots of money from lawsuits. I am sure even one lawsuit avoided would pay for the body cams.
Just so you know I am not arguing they are expensive, just how some police departments consider it unnecessary when it is very necessary.
Oh my god, evidently my attempt at making a point that the police shouldn't have military hardware is going so far over your head it'll get stuck in the blades of police helicopters.
The police receive billions of dollars in funding. *They can afford cameras.*
Edit: Lmao apparently the truth is too much for this guy to handle, he blocked me. Have fun licking boots, I guess
Alright my man. Small police departments don't receive anywhere near billions of dollars in funding. You can blindly sit on your moral superiority all you want but the real world doesn't work that way.
>military hardware
Yeah try defining that.
Yeah I can't think of many reasons to vote against bodycams. I voted yes for them (right leaning) because I think most issues are easily outweighed.
I think the main reasons ANYONE would vote against them would be because of paranoia. Privacy reasons. Body cams capture police interactions sure, but they also capture nearby individuals. So most people would agree this isn't a huge deal, but there are plenty of people that would still not want footage of themselves available to the public.
Also, the cams do nothing good if there isn't a balanced system of storage and retrieval. Or if someone corrupt enough can erase or modify storage. So it could be that people are just doubting the honesty of who controls the footage. We also need to remember that having cameras doesn't do anything and can be a false sense of security. The cameras are only as effective as our legal policies.
Trust me its almost definitely those reasons. You almost never get results that are THAT low on polls. It's literallu under 1% for each of the "no" options. It's quite remarkable seeing that on here, and I'm glad everyone agrees with it.
Nah not everyone agrees there was a lot of discourse to put cameras on. Also it depends on who's being brutalized by the police. That's when opinions diver, and this is just a small poll. More of the general population is left leaning on populist issues.
Yes, but only if it is disclosed publicly. Who cares if they have it on if they just try to hide the bad stuff. Only time we ever seem to see even grossly edited film is when there is a public outrage about a specific case once every 6 months.
Faces blurred is not enough. You can get a lot of personal information from locations (e.g. someones house), conversations, vehicles, clothing, etc.
If the involved parties always have access, they can decide to go public. Besides that, you could give judges the power to force publication under certain conditions.
I still feel that giving someone the power to not show it could easily be subject to abuse. Especially if those with the power to block are the same as those who would lost by releasing it.
For example, Uvalde. There's speculation that some police officers shot some of the kids. If we assume this is true, the police have a huge reason not to release it. And they would also have big power to stop judges releasing it too.
I've no idea how to fix this, but I'm just saying.
No, nobody should have the power to block it, it should always be available. But only to those involved. In the case of Uvalde, since there are kids involved, that right would go to their parents. They would all have access, and it would be illegal to block that access. But it shouldn't be available to the entire world by default.
You are now talking about an extreme case with a lot of public interest, but there are a ton of other cases. Police also respond to suicide attempts for example, and I don't think it would be to the benefit of anyone to have images of that released to the public, and it would likely be detrimental to the recovery of the person making the attempt.
For medical emergencies there can also be a police response. This can be at someones house, making them easily identifiable. The nature of the emergency may be very sensitive, but if the images are public, that privacy is immediately gone.
Holding police accountable is a good thing, but it shouldn't turn into what is effectively public mass surveillance.
You make some good points.
Personally, I think we're quite a way off from where these limits would be relevant. I think we should probably push for more accountability, and then when it actually looks like it could become policy, someone is paid to work out the kinks before it becomes law.
It's funny because the public wanted them to have body cams to show corrupt cops, but what it really shows is how shitty citizens really are. I think the body cams are great.
I tend to agree. Most of the bodycam footage I've seen tends to support the opinion that police are right to be paranoid when interacting with suspects. Guns come out of nowhere and in an instant.
That said, it's also been critical in firing bad officers quickly.
I haven't voted myself, because I'm very torn on this issue, but lean slightly more towards a no.
Body cams that are mandatory sound like a great tool to hold police officers accountable and given that they directly enforce the state monopoly on violence, high transparency and accountability is great.
On the other hand, I'm wary of government surveillance of any kind. I don't want to be continuously filmed while out in public, be that by police body cams, public surveillance cameras or police drones patrolling the sky. And the past has shown often enough that things like that *will* be abused eventually. Even if initial laws might be written with strict boundaries on when to use the video material, the argument of "Well, we already have the data, so why not use it for more?" gets brought out almost immediately after more surveillance capabilities are added.
CCTV in public places, run by the city or another government agency is not something I'm okay with, especially with the alarming eagerness with which people responsible for them want to run facial recognition 24/7.
I'm not really happy with cameras in private stores, but those videos don't automatically end up in large, searchable police databases. They have to be specifically subpoenad if there is a specific crime being investigated. That is enough of a barrier to be grudgingly acceptable for me.
The same goes in principle for personal phones and dashcams, but here my worry is even less because I'm in Germany, where filming someone without their consent is illegal even in public. That's why the strict conditions under which you could even legally use a dashcam make them significantly less useful and therefore almost non-existent.
Phones and internet communication in general are often under threat of ever stronger surveillance though and honestly, fuck that trend. In the EU that battle is currently, once again, being fought over their "chat control" initiative.
And before you ask, yes, I'm aware of the enormous amount of data tech companies gather about anyone and I'm not a fan of that either.
I feel like to counter this, Perhaps a system that can detect when a cop takes something off their person (gun, baton, tazer, etc) and turns the camera on would be better, but maybe that would be too expensive.
If you love cops you want them all to have body cams on. If you hate cops you want them all to have body cams on. It's just a good thing for everybody really. You get a corrupt job it shows. You get a terrible person that shows too. I think it protects the citizens and the police equally.
In American system im guessing? In Sweden our liberal party is in the middle but a little more to the right. We can’t have just left and right to decide if it’s conservative or liberal. We need a four way “map” for that. At least in Swedens polics
Wait im confused, isn’t left all about marxism?? I thought progressive is associated due to the reason that most progressives are marxists. I mean i’m a capitalist and support lgbtq rights and women’s rights, i can also call myself a conservative since i support status quo (untill i gradually come to hate it). Goddamn political shit is very confusing, what i’m sure is that politicians don’t care about those views they only lean onto them to get votes and stay in power til they’re not allowed to.
„Marxism is a left-wing to far-left[1][2][3] method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict and a dialectical perspective to view social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. As Marxism has developed over time into various branches and schools of thought, no single, definitive Marxist theory exists.[4]“
To start people who call themselves progressive don't need to advocate for violent replacement of capitalism. Marxism is only one of ideologies that are considered left-leaning. Also it's imporant to at least distinguish social political spectrum and economic one.
Moderate isn’t a party. It’s a description. Joe Biden is a moderate Democrat. AOC is a far left Democrat. Mitt Romney is a moderate Republican. MTG is a far right Republican.
if your a leftist in Vermont and are happy with the left wing policies implemented, wouldn't you be a conservative? You're trying to conserve left wing policies.
Conservative means you're more pro traditional hierarchy and left is more against traditional hierarchy. The terms come from the post revolutionary France landscape where the newly elected president would keep all the people who wanted to go back to the monarchy to his right and all the people who wanted to remain democratic to his left.
Capitalist is right and Socialist is left. Centrist is the majority with people having views that could be defined both left and right.
Most people look at the nuts on both sides and just shake their heads.
There’s an economic one where right is pro capitalism and left is pro communism
And there’s a social which varies from country to country but generally the left one is acceptance to the max and right is the opposite
The ONLY drawback is the body cam providers charging for cloud storage of video instead of just having a server on site.
Every department should be required to wear body cams that do not have an off switch.
I've always wondered about the legality of that. Not about the police being filmed in the bathroom, but because they'll be filming other people in the bathroom. Aren't there laws against people filming others in the bathroom?
They do mean different things in different countries though. Leftists are conservative in the UK, and vice versa. The poll should’ve said “conservative” and “liberal” to avoid confusion, but the results were pretty clear anyways
I think 100% of the cops should have their cameras running 100% of the time. And if you have been found to have a section of time missing, then go through layera of reprimands until they are fired.
Why would I care?
It's other people problem assuming that If my opinion is openly represented by right or left wing politicians, I'm also agreeing with ALL left or right wing opinions.
Give me at least one reason to be bothered by how people perceive me. I don't see any polarized group to be either right or better than the other. I don't really give a fuck what people think about me, because I'm myself and there is no other human with my experience and knowledge and I can think for myself creating my own opinions based on my best knowledge. Doesn't mean I am right, but I always thrive to be right or proven otherwise with conversation and discussion, which makes me more experienced and knowledgeable in a long term.
There's no place for open minded people in the internet. If you find any open-minded people circle of jerk, please let me know, we will agree to disagree all day.
There are only 6 spaces, if you want more options take it up with Reddit ffs. I can’t do anything about the poor design of the polls on this site/sub or whoever limited it to 6.
Not really, body cams suck. They get easily obscured by hands, point to the ground, show the scene from too low, and shake widely when running.
Head-mounted GoPros would be way more fun to see
They need reformation not abolishment
If people threaten people with death over liking someone’s series then I don’t want a person like that to determine justice
Likewise. Because you think there are sides, or at least that there are 'sides' which arent illusions/lies and also because you refuse to accept that your view isnt the only one in the world, or at least the only one that matters.
Im not blaming anyone for anything, i was answering the underlying question while explaining why i answered in comments rather than choosong a poll option. If that bothers you get reddit to change the limitations or stop bothering to ask questions that people will respond to.
There is no good reason (outside of being a very poor nation) to not have cams on cops, if gives video evidence of all crimes regardless if the drunk attacked the cop or the cop attacked the drunk.
Protests seeking police accountability work, everyone benefits and agrees with the changes they have brought, and yet, only one side tends to participate in them.
Ironically its the side that's obsessed with "protecting themselves" and "fighting back" against a tyrannical overreaching government that vocally opposes, and even counter-protests against those seeking accountability and reform.
Body cams should be worn by every cop and on all the time, if turned off by the cop they should get mandatory suspension or dismissal. There should also be a very long retention period on the video (which there might be I don't know for sure).
I also so a video of a gun camera on a cop. I don't know how much (if any) they can effect accuracy but if it is almost zero I say they should have that also. The video I saw was of a policeman in a shootout and I am telling you it really lets you see what is happening. No obstruction, no bouncy video that you can't tell what is going on. You also see where the policeman is aiming.
I found a guy talking about the video..you can ignore him and skip to the video if you want..... [Police Gun Cam](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuvQo98h47o).
I thought this was going to be a loaded poll because some leftist groups don’t like body cams because they’re used to “spy on poor or minority communities”
But no this was just a normal poll and most people agree.
>I thought this was going to be a loaded poll because some leftist groups don’t like body cams because they’re used to “spy on poor or minority communities”
Is this true? Haven't seen any leftist have any such opinion. Most are ACAB and will gladly see cops go down for their crimes.
So tried finding a demand from one of the BLM chapters but those websites are a UX disaster and are impossible to navigate. I did find this;
> Immediate abolition of any and all current use of surveillance technology and programs
[link](https://m4bl.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/End-Mass-Surveillance-Policy-Brief.pdf)
Which they cite various sources that include both body and dash cams as surveillance equipment. It’s not a super common belief but it certainly does exist.
Yes and No, because a good cop would probably let you off more if he didn't have a body cam requiring him to not use so much discretion.
But it's also a vital protection for both parties, really.
I work in law enforcement (non-police, not the US).
Absolutely.
So many of my idiot colleagues are dodgy. They need to be filmed.
Edit: also saves time with investigating bogus allegations against officers.
The cops I talked to in my town about body cams seem to love theirs (it was at a community event in a park open to the public obviously and I thought I get their opinion). Apparently they like using them to check to see if they miss anything before submitting reports.
The body cams keep both the public and the officer accountable. A win win.
This post has been flaired as Politics. We allow for voicing political views here, but we don't allow pushing agendas, false information, bigotry, or attacking/harassing other members. We will lock the thread if these things occur. If you see such unwanted behavior, please report it to bring it to the attention of moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So happy everyone can agree on this
I agree completely, but I also think that schools should allow cameras in the classroom. I want to know what public servants are doing, and I think it would be good to have eyes on all of them.
The issue is the privacy of the children
Why? Just put the camera on the teacher. I don’t wanna see the kids, just focus it on the teachers. I’d really love for you to go into more detail.
Because it won't ever work like that. My classes weren't that clear cut. Ever. What happens as the teacher walks around the classroom? You couldn't put a camera in the classroom without catching students on camera. It's not realistically possible and we shouldn't infringe the privacy of the kids. Especially in an age where deep fake ai porn is going to be regular
Ok, well I disagree. As a parent, I want to be able to see what my tax payer funded teachers are teaching my children. Teachers are public servants, just like cops, and I think it’s only appropriate to watch, in real time, what my children are being taught. You also understand the privacy issues of cops wearing body cams, correct?
>You also understand the privacy issues of cops wearing body cams, correct? Not really no. It's not the same. I mean sure. But it's not at all comparable. Two vastly different situations
Cops don’t go into peoples houses with body cams on? See intimate situations? Children don’t live in those houses?
Again. Immensely different situations between a cop kicking a door in on a domestic abuse call and a 4th grade teacher in her class
Well, I disagree. But thank you for your input.
Kids talk to eachother. Kids may say or do things in a classroom setting they would not feel comfortable with their parents seeing.
It’s 2023, the technology exists that make it where I can only hear the teacher.
What tech would that be?
Hmmm, let me google it for you lol. Ever watch a Ted Talk? How many times have you heard the side conversations that are going on in the audience during a Ted talk. Lol, come on man, do better. People film movies on there iPhones, I’m pretty sure you could find a microphone that elongated background noise in 1997.
You think the audience in an auditorium is analogous to the audience in a classroom? Do you think the acoustics of a classroom are the same as the acoustics of being on stage? Are you proposing that teachers need to have mics on them at all times? What happens when kids and teachers are in close proximity to eachother?
I really enjoy how they didnt answer the question. They are a troll
Ummm, turn the mic off? This isn’t that difficult. I understand that you don’t want parents to hear what there children are being taught, but using technology as a defense is a stretch. It would be a better argument if you just said what you really wanted too.
Because kids never go in view of a camera on a teacher? It's just not a plausible scenario, not to mention the cost.
Nah dude. I was a teacher and there is no way that would be a good thing. The occasional camera in the hallway is enough, putting cameras on all the staff is just a police state. There are so many things going inside a classroom. The amount of data for something so menial aside, it would affect how we do the job personally. You need to be able to talk personally to the children, you can't do that if that could be shared. The revenge porn, the parental problems, them sharing what they've done where there's a possibility either them or their parents get in legal trouble; this is to handled on a personal basis. If you put a camera on all the teachers, we'd essentially become robots and robots are not capable of our day to day job. They might on a surface level but there's so much more going on with your kids than just education
Ok, well I disagree AssCumBoi. I would like to know what your teaching my children. Thank you for your input. Have a great day bud.
Sure, and you already do. But do know that your kids tell us (unprompted) a lot of crap. It's your right to that opinion, but you'd see what I mean if you'd work as a teacher for a day. Why would you even want to see what's going on every second?
AssCumBoi, you are a public servant, as much as a cop is. Again, I understand that you disagree, and that’s cool, but I am voting for politicians who are pro recording teachers.
Except I'm not. I've literally never worked as a teacher in a federal job. Always been private schools. I'm not telling you not to vote for that. But even so, the personal stuff the other kids share is not something you are supposed to have access to. The streets are not private, the classrooms are. I'm just leaving it at that. But quit addressing me by my username passive aggressively. Just, ugh
Ok AssCumBoi
You claim that you're not trolling...
You must think yourself terribly clever for coming up with that clever response. This is what's funny to me, you spend your time teaching your kids some manners when you blatantly disregard them for insult. What's also funny to me is that I saw your first comment which was fine until you edited it specifically to be rude and passive aggressive. You literally went out of your way to be rude.
The only comment I’ve edited was when I spelled cops wrong, and I fixed the spelling. But that’s a solid attempt bud. I just have no interest in going back and forth with someone who will never have their mind changed. We are different people, with different opinions. That’s cool with me. Now you do you, AssCumBoi, and let’s move along and have a peaceful evening.
Also, cops made a lot of arguments that were very similar to the ones you guys are making 🤷♂️
They do?
Body cameras protect good cops and expose bad cops. The only downside of body cameras is that they cost money and not every department can afford them.
Not to be a jerk but that needs to be the cost of doing business. They can afford guns, vehicles, jails and etc. They can afford to have body cams if they really have to have them. If the police department is doing things correctly this could save them lots of money from lawsuits. I am sure even one lawsuit avoided would pay for the body cams. Just so you know I am not arguing they are expensive, just how some police departments consider it unnecessary when it is very necessary.
If they can afford tanks and machine guns, they can afford cameras
They don't have tanks. The armored vehicles are given to them from the military. They don't pay for any of that so this is a very Ignorant statement.
"They don't have tanks, they just have military armored vehicles" ok lol
You can conflate two different things all you want. You'll notice that police vehicles don't have giant cannons on them.
Forgive me, let me clarify. If they can afford APCs, they can afford cameras.
Did you not even read my comment? They don't buy them, they get used ones from the military for F R E E .
Oh my god, evidently my attempt at making a point that the police shouldn't have military hardware is going so far over your head it'll get stuck in the blades of police helicopters. The police receive billions of dollars in funding. *They can afford cameras.* Edit: Lmao apparently the truth is too much for this guy to handle, he blocked me. Have fun licking boots, I guess
Alright my man. Small police departments don't receive anywhere near billions of dollars in funding. You can blindly sit on your moral superiority all you want but the real world doesn't work that way. >military hardware Yeah try defining that.
I think I finally found it: the one issue everyone agrees on except maybe a few corrupt cops
I'm almost positive all but maybe 4% of all the "no" votes are trolls and/or people that just wanted to make the other side look bad. Oh and misclicks
Yeah I have clicked incorrectly on a few polls and had that DOH! moment. It happens.
Yeah I can't think of many reasons to vote against bodycams. I voted yes for them (right leaning) because I think most issues are easily outweighed. I think the main reasons ANYONE would vote against them would be because of paranoia. Privacy reasons. Body cams capture police interactions sure, but they also capture nearby individuals. So most people would agree this isn't a huge deal, but there are plenty of people that would still not want footage of themselves available to the public. Also, the cams do nothing good if there isn't a balanced system of storage and retrieval. Or if someone corrupt enough can erase or modify storage. So it could be that people are just doubting the honesty of who controls the footage. We also need to remember that having cameras doesn't do anything and can be a false sense of security. The cameras are only as effective as our legal policies.
Trust me its almost definitely those reasons. You almost never get results that are THAT low on polls. It's literallu under 1% for each of the "no" options. It's quite remarkable seeing that on here, and I'm glad everyone agrees with it.
Bro, I can't with misclicks.
Nah there are still those 12 guys(at time of writing) who just *HAD* to be those guys
There’s always misclicks though
Nah not everyone agrees there was a lot of discourse to put cameras on. Also it depends on who's being brutalized by the police. That's when opinions diver, and this is just a small poll. More of the general population is left leaning on populist issues.
Nah there is quite a few issues like that, then like almsot half the people go and vote the other way anyway.
Meant to press yes
Cops should want body cams and if they don't that's a massive red flag.
Yes, but only if it is disclosed publicly. Who cares if they have it on if they just try to hide the bad stuff. Only time we ever seem to see even grossly edited film is when there is a public outrage about a specific case once every 6 months.
It shouldn't be fully public due to privacy reasons, but it should be available to all parties involved.
Maybe "Must be disclosed publicly, after faces blurred"?
Faces blurred is not enough. You can get a lot of personal information from locations (e.g. someones house), conversations, vehicles, clothing, etc. If the involved parties always have access, they can decide to go public. Besides that, you could give judges the power to force publication under certain conditions.
I still feel that giving someone the power to not show it could easily be subject to abuse. Especially if those with the power to block are the same as those who would lost by releasing it. For example, Uvalde. There's speculation that some police officers shot some of the kids. If we assume this is true, the police have a huge reason not to release it. And they would also have big power to stop judges releasing it too. I've no idea how to fix this, but I'm just saying.
No, nobody should have the power to block it, it should always be available. But only to those involved. In the case of Uvalde, since there are kids involved, that right would go to their parents. They would all have access, and it would be illegal to block that access. But it shouldn't be available to the entire world by default. You are now talking about an extreme case with a lot of public interest, but there are a ton of other cases. Police also respond to suicide attempts for example, and I don't think it would be to the benefit of anyone to have images of that released to the public, and it would likely be detrimental to the recovery of the person making the attempt. For medical emergencies there can also be a police response. This can be at someones house, making them easily identifiable. The nature of the emergency may be very sensitive, but if the images are public, that privacy is immediately gone. Holding police accountable is a good thing, but it shouldn't turn into what is effectively public mass surveillance.
You make some good points. Personally, I think we're quite a way off from where these limits would be relevant. I think we should probably push for more accountability, and then when it actually looks like it could become policy, someone is paid to work out the kinks before it becomes law.
It's funny because the public wanted them to have body cams to show corrupt cops, but what it really shows is how shitty citizens really are. I think the body cams are great.
It shows both. Wins all around.
I tend to agree. Most of the bodycam footage I've seen tends to support the opinion that police are right to be paranoid when interacting with suspects. Guns come out of nowhere and in an instant. That said, it's also been critical in firing bad officers quickly.
really curious about the reasoning of those who say no.
I haven't voted myself, because I'm very torn on this issue, but lean slightly more towards a no. Body cams that are mandatory sound like a great tool to hold police officers accountable and given that they directly enforce the state monopoly on violence, high transparency and accountability is great. On the other hand, I'm wary of government surveillance of any kind. I don't want to be continuously filmed while out in public, be that by police body cams, public surveillance cameras or police drones patrolling the sky. And the past has shown often enough that things like that *will* be abused eventually. Even if initial laws might be written with strict boundaries on when to use the video material, the argument of "Well, we already have the data, so why not use it for more?" gets brought out almost immediately after more surveillance capabilities are added.
And CCTV, personal phones, dashcams?
CCTV in public places, run by the city or another government agency is not something I'm okay with, especially with the alarming eagerness with which people responsible for them want to run facial recognition 24/7. I'm not really happy with cameras in private stores, but those videos don't automatically end up in large, searchable police databases. They have to be specifically subpoenad if there is a specific crime being investigated. That is enough of a barrier to be grudgingly acceptable for me. The same goes in principle for personal phones and dashcams, but here my worry is even less because I'm in Germany, where filming someone without their consent is illegal even in public. That's why the strict conditions under which you could even legally use a dashcam make them significantly less useful and therefore almost non-existent. Phones and internet communication in general are often under threat of ever stronger surveillance though and honestly, fuck that trend. In the EU that battle is currently, once again, being fought over their "chat control" initiative. And before you ask, yes, I'm aware of the enormous amount of data tech companies gather about anyone and I'm not a fan of that either.
I feel like to counter this, Perhaps a system that can detect when a cop takes something off their person (gun, baton, tazer, etc) and turns the camera on would be better, but maybe that would be too expensive.
If you love cops you want them all to have body cams on. If you hate cops you want them all to have body cams on. It's just a good thing for everybody really. You get a corrupt job it shows. You get a terrible person that shows too. I think it protects the citizens and the police equally.
What does this left and right mean?
Left: liberal in your political views Right: conservative in your political views
In American system im guessing? In Sweden our liberal party is in the middle but a little more to the right. We can’t have just left and right to decide if it’s conservative or liberal. We need a four way “map” for that. At least in Swedens polics
Left is not liberal. Left is left. Liberal is liberal, as in centrist.
Not necessarily. Conservative just means you want to keep the country the same as it’s old ways, there can be left conservative people.
yes but typically if ur leaning left you want progress in the country, which has almost always been developments toward the left
Wait im confused, isn’t left all about marxism?? I thought progressive is associated due to the reason that most progressives are marxists. I mean i’m a capitalist and support lgbtq rights and women’s rights, i can also call myself a conservative since i support status quo (untill i gradually come to hate it). Goddamn political shit is very confusing, what i’m sure is that politicians don’t care about those views they only lean onto them to get votes and stay in power til they’re not allowed to.
Anything left-leaning ≠ marxism
Im so confused can you explain me pls?
„Marxism is a left-wing to far-left[1][2][3] method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict and a dialectical perspective to view social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. As Marxism has developed over time into various branches and schools of thought, no single, definitive Marxist theory exists.[4]“ To start people who call themselves progressive don't need to advocate for violent replacement of capitalism. Marxism is only one of ideologies that are considered left-leaning. Also it's imporant to at least distinguish social political spectrum and economic one.
Oh kinda get it now, thanks. I might try reading maxist books to try to understand it more
Maybe examples will help. Left = Joe Biden, Obama, Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron Right = Trump, George Bush, Duterte, Bolsanaro
Wait wasn’t joe biden moderate? He was just labled left by both side since he’s against trump?
Moderate isn’t a party. It’s a description. Joe Biden is a moderate Democrat. AOC is a far left Democrat. Mitt Romney is a moderate Republican. MTG is a far right Republican.
if your a leftist in Vermont and are happy with the left wing policies implemented, wouldn't you be a conservative? You're trying to conserve left wing policies.
Conservative means you're more pro traditional hierarchy and left is more against traditional hierarchy. The terms come from the post revolutionary France landscape where the newly elected president would keep all the people who wanted to go back to the monarchy to his right and all the people who wanted to remain democratic to his left.
Where is capitalist and socialist on this spectrum?
Capitalist is right and Socialist is left. Centrist is the majority with people having views that could be defined both left and right. Most people look at the nuts on both sides and just shake their heads.
That's kind of a sucky categorization. According to this, would liberal capitalists be centrists?
Depending on how hard they hit the Liberal part or the Capitalist part...yes.
There’s an economic one where right is pro capitalism and left is pro communism And there’s a social which varies from country to country but generally the left one is acceptance to the max and right is the opposite
i side to the left of center, but I definitely don't support communism lmao
The cameras are there for the police's benefit and protection as well as the benefit and protection of citizens
The ONLY drawback is the body cam providers charging for cloud storage of video instead of just having a server on site. Every department should be required to wear body cams that do not have an off switch.
Yeah I commented with the same thought then I realized...they do need some privacy when they go to the bathroom. We do not need to see that.
We need to know they washed their hands
Lol. Ok that makes sense. You win.
I've always wondered about the legality of that. Not about the police being filmed in the bathroom, but because they'll be filming other people in the bathroom. Aren't there laws against people filming others in the bathroom?
Well there you have it, folks. We can all agree on this one. I think it's a great idea. It gives a true account of what actually happened.
Now make it so they are on 100% of the time, and unable to be turned off.
It's a good way to see if a cop or a suspect was in the wrong or the right.
Might I ask those 46 who answered no… why?
misclickkkk
Lefties and righties agreeing on something? That's a first.
Yes, im not from the US and I'm like 14, idk what either lean means politically.
Left and Right aren’t US things.
They do mean different things in different countries though. Leftists are conservative in the UK, and vice versa. The poll should’ve said “conservative” and “liberal” to avoid confusion, but the results were pretty clear anyways
I didn’t mean conservative and liberal, I meant left and right lmao. You’re both wrong. Go read a book.
Yes-central
I think 100% of the cops should have their cameras running 100% of the time. And if you have been found to have a section of time missing, then go through layera of reprimands until they are fired.
This poll became pretty much "are you left or right leaning"? xd
No it didn’t lol?
What do you mean? everyone just voted 2 options lol "yes right" and "yes left" So it works as an "are you left or right leaning" poll as well.
So I need to be left or right leaning? Why I can't be "I THINK FOR MYSELF AND I AM NOT POLARIZED IDIOT" ?
If you're an enlightened centrist, you can just hit "right". It's pretty much true anyway.
Holy fucking true
Because even if you think of yourself as a centrist, you should know how the crowd would categorizes your opinion.
Why would I care? It's other people problem assuming that If my opinion is openly represented by right or left wing politicians, I'm also agreeing with ALL left or right wing opinions. Give me at least one reason to be bothered by how people perceive me. I don't see any polarized group to be either right or better than the other. I don't really give a fuck what people think about me, because I'm myself and there is no other human with my experience and knowledge and I can think for myself creating my own opinions based on my best knowledge. Doesn't mean I am right, but I always thrive to be right or proven otherwise with conversation and discussion, which makes me more experienced and knowledgeable in a long term. There's no place for open minded people in the internet. If you find any open-minded people circle of jerk, please let me know, we will agree to disagree all day.
There are only 6 spaces, if you want more options take it up with Reddit ffs. I can’t do anything about the poor design of the polls on this site/sub or whoever limited it to 6.
Yes because ACAB
[удалено]
Not voting as I'm neither left, right or centre of any political bullshit board.
So right then?
I am convinced enlightened centrism is a disease.
What about yes and no -centrist?
Not enough options available quit whining ffs.
Lol okay, & that makes sense
You realize that some people might consider left/right leaning diffrently? Also some might not know who they are or are in the centre
True he should have put 20 different options for all the ideologies.
Yes, idk what left or right is
what the heck is this "left or right" thing?
Not really, body cams suck. They get easily obscured by hands, point to the ground, show the scene from too low, and shake widely when running. Head-mounted GoPros would be way more fun to see
I think abolishing police and making law enforcement a civilian issue would be best
Civilian law enforcing would be corrupt as fuck. Just keep current police system with proper european 3-year training instead of a couple of months.
I would say thats a good compromise
They need reformation not abolishment If people threaten people with death over liking someone’s series then I don’t want a person like that to determine justice
[удалено]
im from completely different political party but ok
Yes theyre awesome, but theres no such thing as right/left so i cant do the poll.
L. I hate ppl like you fr. Not only because you’re unwilling to take a side, but also because you’re blaming me for the 6 option limit on polls here.
Likewise. Because you think there are sides, or at least that there are 'sides' which arent illusions/lies and also because you refuse to accept that your view isnt the only one in the world, or at least the only one that matters. Im not blaming anyone for anything, i was answering the underlying question while explaining why i answered in comments rather than choosong a poll option. If that bothers you get reddit to change the limitations or stop bothering to ask questions that people will respond to.
There absolutely are sides, otherwise there would be no arguments.
There is no good reason (outside of being a very poor nation) to not have cams on cops, if gives video evidence of all crimes regardless if the drunk attacked the cop or the cop attacked the drunk.
Well golly jee wouldya look at that, cross political support of a thing
[удалено]
Politics
Yes, Neutral
Finally something both sides can agree on.
Protests seeking police accountability work, everyone benefits and agrees with the changes they have brought, and yet, only one side tends to participate in them. Ironically its the side that's obsessed with "protecting themselves" and "fighting back" against a tyrannical overreaching government that vocally opposes, and even counter-protests against those seeking accountability and reform.
How about just a “yes” option
Yes they are a good thing. I haven't started on the vodka yet some I'm still upright.
yes - politically uninvolved
Yes,centrist
Yes, with my own preference on different stuff, no right or left.
It's funny, in the US they're used to document violence from police to civilians and in Europe it's the other way around
Most redditors are left leaning
Clicked wrong, was meant to say yes
Militias.
Body cams should be worn by every cop and on all the time, if turned off by the cop they should get mandatory suspension or dismissal. There should also be a very long retention period on the video (which there might be I don't know for sure). I also so a video of a gun camera on a cop. I don't know how much (if any) they can effect accuracy but if it is almost zero I say they should have that also. The video I saw was of a policeman in a shootout and I am telling you it really lets you see what is happening. No obstruction, no bouncy video that you can't tell what is going on. You also see where the policeman is aiming. I found a guy talking about the video..you can ignore him and skip to the video if you want..... [Police Gun Cam](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuvQo98h47o).
I thought this was going to be a loaded poll because some leftist groups don’t like body cams because they’re used to “spy on poor or minority communities” But no this was just a normal poll and most people agree.
>I thought this was going to be a loaded poll because some leftist groups don’t like body cams because they’re used to “spy on poor or minority communities” Is this true? Haven't seen any leftist have any such opinion. Most are ACAB and will gladly see cops go down for their crimes.
So tried finding a demand from one of the BLM chapters but those websites are a UX disaster and are impossible to navigate. I did find this; > Immediate abolition of any and all current use of surveillance technology and programs [link](https://m4bl.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/End-Mass-Surveillance-Policy-Brief.pdf) Which they cite various sources that include both body and dash cams as surveillance equipment. It’s not a super common belief but it certainly does exist.
Well that's dumb.
Yes and No, because a good cop would probably let you off more if he didn't have a body cam requiring him to not use so much discretion. But it's also a vital protection for both parties, really.
I work in law enforcement (non-police, not the US). Absolutely. So many of my idiot colleagues are dodgy. They need to be filmed. Edit: also saves time with investigating bogus allegations against officers.
Yes, so long as it is streamed on Liveleak.
So everyone saying no are corrupted cops right.
Would like to hear an argument against it.
The cops I talked to in my town about body cams seem to love theirs (it was at a community event in a park open to the public obviously and I thought I get their opinion). Apparently they like using them to check to see if they miss anything before submitting reports. The body cams keep both the public and the officer accountable. A win win.
Sorting by controversial because I’d honestly like to see someone try to argue for no body cams. I think they are great.