Pros And Cons Of Corrupting Police Body Cameras

Allegations against police officers over stepping their authority have surfaced over the years. Freddy Carlos Gray, a twenty five year old black man from Baltimore, was apart of these allegations. With his hands in the air and his head down, police would not take him to the hospital even though Gray was telling them that he was injured and could not breathe. Officials at the Baltimore Police Station say that this situation would have not ended in death if the officers would have follow procedure and took him the hospital. Critics describe the use of unnecessary force against civilians as unconstitutional, others say that officers are given too much power and that corrupt cops could easily give false information or sabotage evidence to clear

A person can argue that camera footage is just like any other piece of evidence; police officers can tamper with the camera and turn them off. Yes, one can argue that a camera is just as capable of being compromised as a piece of paper. If a cop were to tamper with the camera and the camera footage was randomly turned off during an arrest, then the judge could see that the camera was tampered with and a certain punishment could be charged to the officer. On camera, a judge can see the events that take place and interpret the evidence better; either way, body cameras are an easier solution to problem of corrupt

Right now the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD) is spending $6 million dollars on cameras for their officers according to the KCPD. David Zimmerman Chief of the KCPD says, “”We’re moving toward body cameras for the same reasons we did in-car cameras: to ensure accountability, to identify any issues that could require training and to provide indisputable accounts of incidents.””(). Unlike Zimmerman, chief Tony Farrar of the California’s Rialto Police Department is more worried about making sure the cameras are a good ideas, he is doing this by conducting