Obama announces plan to fund purchase of 50,000 police body cams

http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/1/7314685/after-ferguson-obama-announces-funding-for-police-body-cameras

This is all well and good, but some police departments that have taxpayer-funded police body cams refuse to release video, saying the video is of a private nature to the policeman. (Of course, I suspect that they wouldn't wait a nanosecond to release a video if it exonerated an officer of wrongdoing.)

Quote :

In an announcement today, the White House has pledged $263 million in new federal funding for police training and body cameras, set aside by executive order. The money includes $75 million allocated specifically for the purchase of 50,000 cameras for law enforcement officers across the country. The training portion of the funds would go toward instructing police in the responsible use of paramilitary equipment like assault rifles and armored personnel carriers, much of which has flooded local departments as a result of a Homeland Security preparedness program. Additional funds will go to fund police outreach programs designed to build trust between local departments and the communities they serve.

The cameras are designed to provide a definitive record of police activities, and have become a frequent demand in the wake of the Ferguson protests. The protests began with the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager killed by the police in Ferguson. Community leaders pointed to video taken in the aftermath of Brown's death as evidence of police misconduct, and the subsequent outcry has triggered a Justice Department investigation. More recently, a widely shared video of Cleveland police shooting a 12-year-old named Tamir Rice has intensified the demand for video documentation of police activities. Last week, the parents of Michael Brown announced a campaign "to ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera."

The new funding push is substantial, but 50,000 cameras will cover only a fraction of the more than 750,000 police officers currently employed in America. Camera proposals have also run into trouble with public records laws in states like Washington, which require the release of all police records not actively tied up in an investigation. With hundreds of hours of video generated by police cameras every day, that would present serious problems for both privacy and simple logistics.

Still, many police departments have already looked into body-mounted cameras. On October 1st, the Washington D.C. police began a six-month pilot program that put cameras on the shoulders of many local police, and officials expect the program to reduce the number of complaints filed against officers by as much as 80 percent. The program wasn't cheap: it cost $1 million to buy and store the necessary volume of cameras. But after today, other departments that decide to take the same leap will have federal matching funds to soften the blow.

Eric wrote:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/1/7314685/after-ferguson-obama-announces-funding-for-police-body-cameras

This is all well and good, but some police departments that have taxpayer-funded police body cams refuse to release video, saying the video is of a private nature to the policeman.  (Of course, I suspect that they wouldn't wait a nanosecond to release a video if it exonerated an officer of wrongdoing.)

Quote :

In an announcement today, the White House has pledged $263 million in new federal funding for police training and body cameras, set aside by executive order. The money includes $75 million allocated specifically for the purchase of 50,000 cameras for law enforcement officers across the country. The training portion of the funds would go toward instructing police in the responsible use of paramilitary equipment like assault rifles and armored personnel carriers, much of which has flooded local departments as a result of a Homeland Security preparedness program. Additional funds will go to fund police outreach programs designed to build trust between local departments and the communities they serve.

The cameras are designed to provide a definitive record of police activities, and have become a frequent demand in the wake of the Ferguson protests. The protests began with the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager killed by the police in Ferguson. Community leaders pointed to video taken in the aftermath of Brown's death as evidence of police misconduct, and the subsequent outcry has triggered a Justice Department investigation. More recently, a widely shared video of Cleveland police shooting a 12-year-old named Tamir Rice has intensified the demand for video documentation of police activities. Last week, the parents of Michael Brown announced a campaign "to ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera."

The new funding push is substantial, but 50,000 cameras will cover only a fraction of the more than 750,000 police officers currently employed in America. Camera proposals have also run into trouble with public records laws in states like Washington, which require the release of all police records not actively tied up in an investigation. With hundreds of hours of video generated by police cameras every day, that would present serious problems for both privacy and simple logistics.

Still, many police departments have already looked into body-mounted cameras. On October 1st, the Washington D.C. police began a six-month pilot program that put cameras on the shoulders of many local police, and officials expect the program to reduce the number of complaints filed against officers by as much as 80 percent. The program wasn't cheap: it cost $1 million to buy and store the necessary volume of cameras. But after today, other departments that decide to take the same leap will have federal matching funds to soften the blow.

     Since the lawlessness in Ferguson....White House Meeting [with Al Sharpton].....The cowh and holder making comments that are directed to corrections aimed at law enforcement and continued condemnation of the judicial system and what's need to make some not to feel so mistrusting....

      Cameras are the solution?.....OK... How about cameras on all politicians and cabinet members?...They are public servants and their actions/comments are questioned from time to time...On the new black panthers where it's been allowed that they talk of bounties on the heads of those they have found guilty with no consequences...on the looters/rioters/thugs...

      Has anyone missed or noticed that the 'changes' are directed in one direction and neglected from the meeting at the White House were business owners/law abiding citizens that had their lives ruined/interrupted  for something that they had no part in whatsoever...most gloss over the fact that there were thugs in the streets but that's easily explained by their mistrust for the system...What's been the changes that need to be made for the instigators and race baiters?...As mentioned one was seated at the table with the cowh....did al get a camera?....

       The entire premise of the protesters and thugs was based on a lie and yet there were members of the black caucus on the House Floor repeating the lie...."Hands up don't shoot".. Rep Rangel (D-NY) speaking about reparations being needed to somehow placate the anger..This wasn't the case and it was proven by the evidence yet there are some that continue to fan the flames...

        Holder once called Americans 'cowards' for not having a discussion on race relations but in that comment it seems that the ag neglected to accept that a discussion should be based on factual information and not fictional perception...He and others were 'cowards' for not seeing this case as it was...justifiable use of force....