Previous Post
Next Post

Warning! The video above shows a Cleburne, Texas police office calling over a pair of stray dogs, who wag their tails at him – moments before he shoots them. One appears to survive the incident. The Cleburne police have released the following statement: “The City is obviously concerned about the video showing an officer shooting a dog. As is often the case, the short video does not tell the whole story. The officer was responding to a 911 call for assistance. Three dogs had pinned some residents in a vehicle. One dog was secured without incident before the shooting. The officer was attempting . . .

to secure the other dogs until animal control arrived when one dog became aggressive. The City of Cleburne takes the safety of our residents, their pets, and our officers seriously. This incident is currently under review. The review will include interviews with witnesses and review of department policies. Once the review is concluded, any actions that may be warranted will be handled swiftly and appropriately.”

All law enforcement officers in the United States should be required to wear body cams. The cams should be checked before each shift. There should be an official process to determine if a camera was intentionally disabled and strict penalties for same. Oh, and TASER, which makes the cams, is a publicly traded company. FWIW.

Previous Post
Next Post

241 COMMENTS

        • I find it interesting that some people who may or may not be in the Law Enforcement field get incredibly defensive about the prospect of being recorded while on the job. Honestly if the officer has nothing to hide they should be able to wear a body cam with absolutely no fear of what it records.

          • @Edward Franklin, then you won’t feel to bad if the G is reading all your emails and listening to all your phone calls and monitoring your bedroom.

        • The police always tell citizens if you got nothing to hide, then you got nothing to worry about right?

          Turn about is fair play. Body cams. Good idea.

        • Lack of transparency and accountability is, imho, a significant reason that continues to add to the declining opinion of police by “the people”. This can both be used to help justify action by police when needed and provide evidence of wrong doing.

        • All cops should be required to wear body cameras that go directly to a database for the whole world to see. Why not, they spy on us. Screw the cops, they are quickly becoming anti Americans.

        • @wantmycountryback

          If cops are wearing bodycams then I agree with you. It should all be public. It’ll be like cops except no one gets to block out their face when they get videotaped on their worst day.

          After one week the public outcry would demand the cameras be turned off.

        • Government employees have no right to privacy when acting in their official capacity. If you have a problem with that, I’m sure the local mall needs security guards.

        • @ El Mac

          then you won’t feel to bad if the G is reading all your emails and listening to all your phone calls and monitoring your bedroom.

          And

          yep…cool. Bodycams for everyone at all times.

          Everyone doesn’t need to wear body cams – just the police for the following reasons:

          1) Police are part of the G, employed by the G, enforcing rules passed by the G, and the G supposedly works for the people – not the other way around. Government affairs do not have a right to privacy – people of this nation do.

          2). Body cams are a means of determining the truth. When police brutality victim A and B and eye witness C all give the same account it would be helpful (if the cop is telling the truth) for the cop to present video footage detailing the action that occurs as he stated they did.

          3) Body cams are a means of determining the truth. When police brutality victim A and B and eye witness C all give the same account it would be helpful if video footage was available that backed up their statements when the officer got a paid vacation and the department absolved him of his actions.

          4). In the case of scenario 3 above, body cams would act as a deterrent against judge dredd behavior and criminal actions. In the case of scenario 2 above, body cams would act as a deterrent against false testimony.

        • So El Mac, are you making private phone calls, writing private emails and doing something in your bedroom while on the job?

        • On your comment about “so you won’t feel bad if the G is reading your emails” . . . what on earth are you talking about? The police (and I used to be one) are public servants that we entrust to use force to enforce the law. Of course they are subject to oversight by the public. Why do you think monitoring the conduct or misconduct of public servants is the same as individual citizens having Fourth Amendment rights?

          • @ achmed, Well, you should lead the way and cam yourself up. Seeing as how you are all experienced at being a police occifer and all…certainly as a CCWer you should cam up. Afterall, the public has a right to know what goes down in public if you start launching bullets. And it’s for your protection too afterall.

        • @Vendetta

          Haha, you are totally right. This guy seems to really be out of touch.

          Point of fact: the police are citizens on their own time. On the job they are gov’t employees paid to restrict people’s freedoms. And they’re armed. And many shoot dogs for no reason. A body cam is a reasonable requirement on the job.

        • Sorry but when your a .gov employee the only privacy you should have is in the bathroom while you are at work. I work for the.gov and wouldn’t mind wearing a body camera, but I don’t do shady stuff either so… Florida already has pretty strict rules and a broad public records law, at anytime someone can contact me requesting every email I have in my work inbox and the only thing I can ask is how do I get it to you, hell if you know my name you can look up what my salary is with a quick search.

    • Actually, it can be helpful for both parties.
      “POLICE BRUTALITY!”
      “Let’s have a look at the camera.”
      It helps protect the truth. Honestly, aside from cost, I can’t see an argument against it.

      • So long as it can be switched off for breaks and disciplining bad little monkeys, then I’m I can’t see a downside with it as well. After they are “on the job” working for the public.

    • And why exactly is it bs to require them to wear body cams? If I were a cop I would openly embrace a body cam because it can help prove a person innocent of wrong doings. The incident in Ferguson would not have escalated like it did if the cop was wearing a body camera. He would have been immediately shown to be clearly defending his life or else a trigger happy cop.

      • @S.CROCK, hell yeah! Bodycams for everyone…’specially anyone wearing a gun (to include CCWers)…beautiful.

        • El Mac, here’s what i don’t get: if your response to police being told to wear bodycams is “EVERYONE SHOULD WEAR THEM,” then are you opposed to laws that give police officers special status over other civilians?

      • “But I shouldn’t have to wear a body cam!”
        “What? You don’t have something to hide, do you?”

        It’s not just for cops to lord over you on traffic stops anymore, folks 🙂

    • A well-reasoned argument, to be sure. I’ll do my best to counter it.

      1) Police officers conduct their business in public, where no expectation of privacy exists, either for the police officer, or for anyone with whom the police officer engages in public.

      2) Police officers operate under Color of Law, and everything they do in that regard is subject to the public’s right of information (activities currently recognized as internal/private being excepted, of course).

      3) Police body cams would provide evidentiary protection both for the police officers themselves, and for the people with whom they interact.

      4) Reasonable policies can be put in place to ensure the use of body cams doesn’t become overly invasive of anyone’s privacy. Officers could be allowed to have the cameras off, but be required to turn them on when initiating an encounter with someone. I could see the cameras being tied to dispatch, such that if an officer responds to a call, the camera is activated, or if the officer sends a radio call, the camera is activated. Cameras could be required to be deactivated when leaving public areas (e.g. when entering someone’s home without a warrant, such as during an investigation).

      (Note, these are just spit-balled ideas, not fully formed. The point is that they could be used in a reasonable manner.)

      • @Chip Bennett, yes…reasonable manner….just like reasonable gun control. Perfect. Why didn’t I think of that?

        • …just like reasonable gun control…

          Reasonable gun control for LEO? You know, that might actually be a good idea. We can start with stop shooting dogs. After that, maybe we can address their atrocious target-hit rate. There are probably lots of avenues of reasonable gun control to explore for LEO.

        • @El Mac:

          Also, it’s obvious that you have some very strongly-held beliefs and concerns, and probably have some good points to make. Unfortunately, it’s even more obvious that you have little to no desire or intent to engage in any sort of discussion or civil debate about those points and concerns.

          Shame. But nobody can make you join in the conversation like an adult. You have to do that of your own volition.

    • as a public servant, they should be required to wear body cams. both video and sound. if they are correctly enforcing the laws and ordinances they should not have any problem. since they are government employees they should be subject to body cams. will make them behave better knowing their every move is being recorded. i see a lot less officer related shootings and police brutality cases. iirc there is one town who has the officers wear google glass. their brutality reports have gone down more than 1/2 since before they were forced to wear the glasses. bottom line, when you know you are being watched you act differently. just my .02

      • @DRC, oh yeah…when the boss is watching you bet, everyone gets a ticket…everyone goes to jail…yep. Sweet.

    • Wrong.

      Cops should be forced to wear body cams, and they should be on at all times while on patrol, with penalties leading up to dismissal, seizing of pension, and criminal charges for intentionally tampering with or obscuring them.