Uniformed Police Should Have Video Cameras To Protect Both Us And Them

It’s always amusing to observe dumb people trying to concoct some bullshit in an attempt to justify a lazy or dishonest position.

Police Association assistant secretary Bruce McKenzie’s excuses for urging Victorian police to reject the trial of uniform cameras were:

“The police association is worried footage could be used against police in court and build mistrust with the community”

and secondly,

“The public could also be reluctant to provide information to police if they were being recorded.”

On the first claim:

Why would police be worried footage could be used against them in court, unless they know they regularly exceed their powers and in some cases, are blatantly dishonest?

The AV cameras are not intended to record police talking as they walk around. They are there to film contact situations with the public. This is for four reasons:

1.      To gather evidence which can be used in court.

2.      To protect police from dishonest complaints about excessive force or false arrest.

3.      To protect the public against dishonest, malicious or thuggish behaviour by police.

4.      To assist research and training. It will prove very useful to have a new set of objective data on how the police and public interact.

The relationship between police and the public is not symmetric. In an open society, police powers are prescriptive and public laws are proscriptive. That is, what police are entitled to do beyond what other citizens can do is clearly laid out and they cannot do more than this. What citizens cannot do must be clearly laid out and anything not proscribed by law is allowed.

The final part of the first statement: “and build mistrust with the community” is dishonest and telling. The police mistrust the community. That is what is being implied.

There are certain “communities” the police are right to distrust. However, the comment implies police mistrust the community at large. Given that the majority of the general public are law abiding, it is reasonable to suggest this mistrust is a reflection of a perceived public mistrust in the police. If the police cleaned up their well documented corruption and aggressive interactions with the public, they might encounter less mistrust and consequently feel less themselves.

If police are to have extra powers to other citizens (which they must), it is not unreasonable that they are monitored in their use. If they abuse their powers, the AV footage should be used against them. The quid pro quo is that the public must not overreact if

·         The police make an honest mistake that a reasonable person might make.

·         A member of the public starts arguing with and abusing the police, but not enough to warrant arrest and the police lose their temper and swear at the person.

·         Some scumbag spits on police or attacks them and those police use slightly more force than is absolutely necessary in the arrest.

The police are not robots. If someone spat on me, I’d want to teach them a lesson. I said slightly more force than is necessary. I don’t mean breaking someone’s jaw. But if the above scrote had their arm twisted, was pushed onto the ground and copped a knee in the back, let’s not pillory the officer responsible. There has to be some give and take here and an understanding of how difficult the job can be.

On the second claim, that “the public could also be reluctant to provide information to police”:

This is just a furphy. Is he really implying police derive most of their intelligence from members of the public talking to uniformed police, but not wanting any record of it? Most people talking to uniformed police are seeking their help. They are making a complaint about a crime or giving witness information.

Police could be given the discretion to turn the video camera off, although there are some people who (not wholly unreasonably) wouldn’t accept assurances the equipment really was off. I suggest the decrease in “intelligence” gathered from this last category would be far outweighed by the benefits in both police accountability and protection against wrongful accusations on both sides.

Additionally, said benefits also outweigh the infringement to civil liberties of innocent members of the public being filmed by police: that is miniscule compared to the amount of CCTV we’re all on each day (not that that’s entirely a good thing).