https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTFXO7IwVW4

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.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

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.

        • If I’m working in a field where I am granted authority to use extreme force up to and including lethal in the course of normal interaction, then damn well, I should have a camera pointed at me while I’m at work.

          • @ int19h, 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.

    • If these body cams use a cellular connection to stream it live to a central server for storage it would need to make use of a cellular connection such as Verizon 4G LTE and in doing so expose the officer to potentially unsafe levels of radiation.

      • @borg, Well, yes…and yet another reason to cam up everyone so we aren’t dependent on just the cop’s cam. Multiple cams for everyone. Report to the Cam Central for weekly downloading. If you miss a downloading session without pre-authorization, it should be a felony offense and cause as a minimum, a revocation of your citizenship.

      • >> it would need to make use of a cellular connection such as Verizon 4G LTE and in doing so expose the officer to potentially unsafe levels of radiation.

        There isn’t a single scientific study that would show “potentially unsafe levels of radiation” from cellular.

    • El Mac, let me be blunt about this.

      For all the trolling here, you will be issued a cam to wear, and you better damn wear it – or you can kiss your paycheck and uniform (and all the associated perks) goodbye. Here’s why.

      The topic of police cams has been discussed for a few years now, and it has already been implemented in some locations – and the numbers clearly show that it is a Good Thing for everyone involved, except for cops who like to abuse their privileges. There’s less police brutality, and fewer complaints about officer behavior from the citizens. Those numbers speak for themselves, which is why getting broad popular support for those cameras is very easy. All it takes is an excuse to broach the subject.

      Ferguson has provided us with that excuse. This is especially true in the light of the findings that the police officer involved has not done anything wrong – the fact that, if he had a camera on him on that day, there wouldn’t be any doubt about what happened, and no riots over it, is alone sufficient to see why it is a good thing. So now, all across the country, politically active citizens are putting the issue of cameras on the agenda in their local government. And, this being election time, the timing is perfect – politicians must make a stand on this issue, and given the popular support, it’s a complete no-brainer. And because this kind of stuff is in the purview of local governments, we don’t need a big federal level push: we just need many small ones all across the country, which is much, much easier to do (and even if a few should fail, the rest will still give us what we want).

      This will happen. Get used to it. I suppose, if trolling helps you vent your frustration about it, then feel free to troll (but then again, if it makes you frustrated, I don’t want you policing my community).

      • @ int19h, I am not a cop and never have been. Do I think body cams are inevitable? Of course. It’s the world we live in now…big brother, godvernment, fascist socialists and the demise of liberty. Do I agree with it? Nope. But then again, I don’t have MTV piped into my house. So…I’m willing to admit I’m in the minority. And I sleep very well.

        • Have you been living under a rock for the past decade? “Body cams” are all around you, and they have nothing to do with government or some imaginary “fascist socialists”. They are in the devices that people around you – private citizens, same as yourself – carry and use every day. If you don’t like that, you always have the option of living on your private land and never venturing outside, lest you meet some fascist hippie with a smartphone who will infringe on your privacy by taking a photo.

            • Because 1) they are not necessarily around at the right moment, and 2) cops have developed a habit for assaulting people who film them and arresting them on false charges (like, say “resisting arrest”) and confiscating the evidence, which then mysteriously vanishes.

              • If you still don’t see a difference between an officer on duty, and a random citizen, then I suppose we need to get rid of all the other aspects of that difference, either? Qualified immunity, legal authority to use force above and beyond self-defense, arrest and detaining powers, serving warrants… by your logic, cops should either not be able to do all these things, or other citizens should have all the same powers.

                If it sounds ridiculous, then you might want to re-read the BS that you have puked out all over the discussion here, and hopefully realize just how stupid you sound. If you’re still unable to comprehend it, well, I hope they don’t require the use of such advanced intellectual facilities at your current place of employment.

              • @int19h, deadly force is deadly force is deadly force regardless if it is applied via cop or ccwer. So cams for everyone with a deadly weapon capable of being deployed in the blink of an eye. It will protect everyone and cause everyone to rethink whether or not they actually need to deploy deadly force. Do it for the children.

  2. If I were cop, I would DEMAND body cams. If you fear them for some reason, you should not be a cop.

    • From the Police Foundation:

      The Effect of Body-Worn Cameras on Police Use-of-Force
      http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-cameras-police-use-force

      Wearing cameras was associated with dramatic reductions in use-of-force and complaints against officers. The authors conclude:

      “The findings suggest more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force compared to control-conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens’ complaints in the 12-months prior to the experiment.”

      We applaud Chief Farrar for his commitment to conducting rigorous scientific research on a technology initiative that has broad implications for the field of policing.

    • “If I were a cop I would…”

      I hear that a lot on the internet. Amazing what people think can do when they don’t have to actually do it.

  3. So let me get this correct…..

    We give people the power to possibly keep the overall peace by making it legal for them to use violence, and we wont hold them to a higher standard in trade….

    Yeah your basically a Fascist if you don’t want them to have cameras, or just simply insane.

  4. Well, well, no vid… You know, I can see the objection to more surveillance of private citizens carried out by the State. But police body cams pretty much function as surveillance of public servants, like dash cams ( I suppose El Mac and others object to them, too?) “If you have nothing to hide…” isn’t appropriate for private citizens. It is at least arguably highly appropriate for public servants–especially the ones who carry the power of life and death on their hips courtesy of the State.

    • There’s no expectation of privacy while in public. I’m not concerned in the slightest of being caught on a video by a police officer passing me on the street or something.

      Recordings done in private (e.g. when officers serve a warrant on someone’s home) is a different matter. That kind of stuff, I think, should not be published unless it is requested by the person whose privacy would potentially be violated, or by warrant.

  5. Pet owner fail for allowing your dogs, regardless of breed, to run out in the open, especially if they are larger dogs.
    While that does not justify the action, I feel this could have been prevented with a minimal amount of effort by all parties involved.

      • My sister lives in Georgia. Some years back a group of family pets got together and killed a husband and wife out for a walk.

        Stray dogs are a danger. Period. In farm country when I was a youth it was understood, if you let your dog roam and he got shot it was your fault for letting it roam.

        It’s just another show of have far the American male has declined that he tears up over a stray dog getting shot.

        A cop serving a no knock warrant at the wrong address popping the family pet is one thing. A cop respondin to a vicious dog report popping a stray is a whole other thing.

        • “Stray dogs are a danger. Period. In farm country when I was a youth it was understood, if you let your dog roam and he got shot it was your fault for letting it roam.”
          100% Agree! My experience in east TX is the exact same, having lost a dog (not a human life I know, not making a comparison of equal value) and having been attacked by strays as well. Then again, Ive seen people shoot dogs not roaming off of their owners property because they just felt like killing it or had some issue with the owner.

          I wouldnt even go as far to say it breaks down into gender, we as Americans created this whole “Mans Best friend” thing afaik and as we agree, it does not always apply. I was not implying in anyway this is black and white, apologies if it came out that way. Context is huge in this sort of situation.

        • Define Stray?
          An owned family dog that gets out of the backyard? Darn my cats must be strays for going into the back yard.
          Also, a cop shooting a angered growling dog that clearly wants to attack him, fine. Shooting a dog that looks like every happy dog in the world for the last 2000 years or more, not fine, if the dog is resisting capture its called Tranquilizer.

          I live next to a violent dog that only doesn’t go for the bite because I refused to look scared in front of him. And I told his owners that I will shoot the dog if It ever gets closer (There is a reason they never let him outside), This dog (in every clip of the movie I can find) acts nothing like the one next door.

          Being a willing slave of the abusive cops is not American. Standing up to Government Servants is quite possibly the only American thing.

        • I define stray as a dog that’s lose and unsupervised. All the dogs in the Georgia attack were dome4stic pets let out to roam their own property. Dogs follow their nose and ignore property lines. They pack up and trouble starts.

          I had to shoot a dog once. He was a well fed family pet, a german shepard, that was lose in the woods with a pack of other pets. I was 16 and thank God I had a .22. Was I happy at killing that dog? I was happy that I survived the encounter.

          Stray dogs are a danger. Period.

          And that willing slave crap is just another twist on Godwins law. If all you have is leftist bumper sticker slogans you’re wasting your time with me.

        • I actually had to look up Goodwin’s Law, never heard of it before. Your the one bringing up Nazi’s not me.

          Also good to know that something is guilty by existing outside a set border (also known as your comfort zone). These dogs got out despite the attempts of the owners to keep them in, It wasn’t like the owners set them loose and drove away. You still have no answer to my main point, the dogs have not hurt anyone up to this point, only scared some people that as Taylor TX points out don’t really sound all that scared (Watch his link you might learn something). Unless they have a record (Which would change everything) tranquilizer works just fine.

          And BTW I have shed no tears for this dog and its family. I’m angry only because I expect better then silly panic (or whatever was going through this cops mind) from someone “trained” to keep cool in the face of a happy little puppy. Also please don’t apply your logic to runaway people.

          One last thing that last paragraph, was nothing more then icing on a cake of an argument, I’m laughing that you cant seem to make it past that. BTW I don’t see things in a left or right mindset, I see pro freedom and anti freedom, that part to me at least is simple.

        • @Rion “tranquilizer works just fine.”
          I would agree tranq’s do help(but in my experience, just get peoples dogs to the shelter so they can be euthanized) but I highly doubt it is standard issue for an LEO, animal control most likely.

          @JWM Sounds like some of our “hillbilly education” experiences, great term btw, were pretty similiar. Pack mentality is no different than mob mentality in humans.

          “In farm country when I was a youth it was understood, if you let your dog roam and he got shot it was your fault for letting it roam.”

          This however is the POLAR opposite of my experience, the further you get from the city, the more likely you are to find people who just leave their dogs outside in the yard un-attended the majority of the time.

        • @ Taylor
          Cant argue with you there, putting them out to put them down happens way too much. And yeah I know a cop wouldn’t have Tranquilizer, but According to either Fargo’s video or your own, Animal Services took in the other two dogs, so they were there. It would be a failure of services if they weren’t supplied the Tranquilizer but if the dog was violent it would all make sense, the video is what makes that seem unlikely.

          @general
          Also I’m not saying that rabid packs of Dogs aren’t violent, cause they are and yes often a bullet is the only way to keep them from killing and causing damage. What I’m saying is that IN THIS SITUATION that likely does not apply. These are not violent dogs, and don’t act like violent dogs in all the videos I can find.

          Either this cop is not mentally fit for duty, or there is so much that no one is saying yet.

        • Taylor, i believe you. I’ve been to TX. A lot more room to roam in. I was raised in WV where the next farm was just over yonder in the next holler. That population density is one reason we mostly hunted with shotguns there. OHio, just across the river from us and where my uncle lived was shotgun only for the whole state for much the same reason.

          It took little time for roaming pets to do major damage to livestock. Which for the small family farmer was a major concern.

          Another major problem was dumped cats. feral cats are very efficient killers and they decimate squirrel, rabbit and quail populations. And rabies becomes an issue with dumped animals as well.

          I haven’t taken a side on the body cam issue. Don’t feel it’s that important an issue for me.

          Regardless of how a dog became lose to roam, he’s become a threat when he is lose. At that point I give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter regardless of his job title.

  7. All cops should wear body cams. And all teachers. And all politicians. In fact, transparency is such a great moderator of human behavior, we should all wear body cams.

    – Sarcasm sponsored by The Circle.

    • Drawing a comparison to having a public servant being recorded on the job and a private citizen being recorded is intellectually dishonest. This is not a slippery slope argument, there is no slippery slope to even pretend to be upset at.
      Police body cams reduce the rates of police brutality, they reduce the number of complaints filed against police officers, they are a win for the public. I’m sure we all have different views on what the police should and should not be doing. However to act as if requiring police departments to have their officers wear body cams is somehow unreasonable without giving an articulated intelligent reason lends no credibility to your argument.

      • The very first newspaper editorial that I read proposing cameras on cops also proposed cameras on teachers. I don’t believe in slippery slope arguments – one action rarely inexorably leads to another. But incrementalism – one action will necessarily lead to people using that action as precedent for further action – is darn near the first law of politics. Maybe we put cameras on cops, and it stops there. But I think it will expand well beyond that, and I don’t want to live in a world with cameras everywhere. Then again, I live in Chicago, so I kind of already do.

        But even putting aside the incrementalism argument, there are people on the other end of that camera who are not cops. People who are private citizens. People who will likely be videotaped at the worst moments of their lives. Who gets to access those videos? Are they subject to FOIA//Sunshine Laws? Do you trust government to manage access rights, whatever they are? And what about confidential informants and sensitive investigations? When, if at all, can the cameras be turned off?

        So there’s your reasoned counter-argument.

        • I completely agree with the concern. However police have no expectation of privacy while on the job, teachers do. At least that is my understanding of how that law applies.
          Your concern about the people being recorded is also spot on, but I can not think of another way to curb what seems to be the stemming tide of completely irresponsible and unacceptable police behavior. There is a culture within the police review system of protecting the officer no matter what the consequences, private citizens are held to a much higher standard than police officers for discharging their weapon at either animals or people. When it comes to a he said she said argument the police invariability side with the police. How else can we ensure proper behavior and punish unacceptable behavior?

          I think that there needs to be a review system for police incidents by persons who are not affiliated with the police department, it’s time that the reasonable person standard applied to them as well.

        • Before throwing cameras on every cop, I think there are other options to increase accountability. Independent review boards are one. There was an excellent article on TTAG about a month ago about Wisconsin establishing such boards. The biggest problem is the close relationship between the police, police unions, local politicians, prosecutors, and even judges. That little fraternity needs broken up a little. And that won’t involve invading private citizens’ privacy.

          As for teachers, given the limited privacy rights that courts have granted students, I would not bank on this not expanding to schools and beyond.

        • I’m in the police-should-wear-cameras crowd, but this is the best argument against that I’ve read thus far. Just wanted to commend you for a well thought out and reasoned argument instead of just screaming “Bullsh!t.”

          • @Dislexic, agreed. JeffR did a great job. I’m just a bit more succinct. Right RF? 🙂 RF loves to spice it up here and get folks riled up.

        • Thanks, Dislexic. I think we need to parse through this issue a bit more. There seems to be agreement on both the left and right that body cams are a great idea, and it bothers me that I am not seeing much discussion on the potential downsides.

        • When teachers, garbagemen, and grocery clerks are invested with the powers of the State and Officers of the Court, then you have something approaching an argument.

          None of the items of your concern are of even the slightest relevance, No one but a sworn officer has employment that we grant the power to detain you, question you, cite you, arrest you, or anything else. Bank tellers, jewelers, and about a gazillion other professions with much no power save for fondling cash, and far greater accountability, are videotaped everywhere but in the head when they are at work doing their jobs.

          That’s not even a strawman.

        • Have to disagree a little bit with Robert. Teachers are state employees, charged by law with parent-like care and control over other people’s children, who by law must be educated by someone and the State is the default educator. So no, the ones who work for the state do not have the same expectation of privacy as a private citizen. Not sure I want them all fitted with body cams, but “expectation of privacy” is not the reason.

        • Teachers on camera? Why, why, that is almost exactly what we have now with schools that bristle with security cameras. Buses, too. Get over yourselves, LEOs.

        • JerffR, it draws people’s sympathy that you point out how bodycams on every LEO would also, if the video was a public record, reveal non-LEOs during “the worst moments of their lives.” You did reflect, though, that in Chicago you are already videod in nearly every public space. In Manhattan you could make that “every public space,” and most corporate common areas, all surveilled by live humans in the massive financial district video center, a public/private venture which the WSJ once reported on, but which has slipped from public awareness.

          The PD and private surveillance videos of the so-called ordinary person are already made public in most jurisdictions. There are, of course, those whose position, wealth, and power enable them to move from private space to private space, and through privileged corridors in corporate space. Their worst moments are, in my experience, kept well out of the public eye. This has been and will remain true, even if bodycams become common requirements. I’m sure you are aware of that.

          Bodycams will, of course, cut back considerably on the avenues of argument open both in criminal defense work and in civil rights claims of police excessive force in cities like…Chicago, which has for years been making massive payouts for such claims, a regular and generous part of some civil practices.

          My own view is that bodycams should become, like dashcams, a routine and natural corollary of the exceptional degree of privilege and immunity we extend to “sworn” LEOs. We have only just begun to climb out of the corrupt big city police/politics machines that arose in the late 19th century. I know the history of that development well for the City of Philadelphia, somewhat for NYC, and only a bit for Chicago, mostly from the first Mayor Daley’s tenure. The need to bring an even-handedness to policing certainly has not ended. I’m certain you are familiar with the nature of both LEO and Accused testimony in court. How could you not want to clean up that mess?

        • The very first newspaper editorial that I read proposing cameras on cops also proposed cameras on teachers.

          I’m all for police wearing body cams – in fact I have no problem whatsoever with all state employee’s wearing body cams while performing duties of the state. If it is a slippery slope against the state towards honesty and transparency -The more the merrier. Slap a camera on all of them. Postal workers, teachers, cops, they can all wear a body cam. I have no problem with it at all. If it restricts and makes transparent the activities of the state – i’m all for that. Teachers can stop lying and spraying their bias all over our kids minds, postal works can stop chit chatting and address the line of customers going out the building and down the road, cops can stop shooting people and dogs at the whim of their mood.

          So in contrast to JeffR and El-mac: Put a camera on all of them. The slippery slope against government employees is completely acceptable to me. If JeffR is a public teacher and El-mac is a police officer, they work for us, and they can get a body cam. We wouldn’t be here, if they could keep their “x” together and honor the constitution and civil, natural rights for which this country is based. So stop complaining government employees.

          • What about private school teachers? Once you force all public school teachers to wear body cameras it makes it easier to push for all private school teachers to wear body cameras as well. If the police wear these cameras they become for all intents and purposes mobile surveillance systems.

          • @Anonymous, well, I’m going to assume you pay your state and federal tax…so you basically are working for the state/fedzilla 50% of the time, ergo, you can be considered a good little state employee…you wear the cam 50% of the time. Cool.

        • I agree. Teachers who are armed and charged with enforcing the law should wear body cams too.

          • @Dr. Kenny Noisewater, yep. All CCWers should wear body cams if they are packing…the people have a right to know how you respond to threats….

        • >> The very first newspaper editorial that I read proposing cameras on cops also proposed cameras on teachers.

          If teachers show a particularly prominent rate of abuse, similar to what we see with police these days, then why not?

          >> there are people on the other end of that camera who are not cops. People who are private citizens. People who will likely be videotaped at the worst moments of their lives.

          For the most part, those would be people in public on the streets. Same people who are already been caught on video by countless private cameras and smartphones around them, by private security cameras, Google Street View cars etc. If you have an expectation of privacy while in public, you’re gravely mistaken, and this doesn’t make it any worse.

          When we’re talking about private citizens in a private setting (e.g. their own house), it’s a different thing, but there’s no reason why we can’t have laws regulating that. We already have laws that distinguish between public and private for legal surveillance purposes; just apply the same standard to video recordings, and for those of them that are then deemed private, require the consent of those whose privacy is affected, or else a warrant, for access.

          >> Do you trust government to manage access rights, whatever they are?

          Not particularly, but if I have to weigh this against the amount of police force abuse that this would help to prevent, my choice is clear. I’d rather risk the chance of a private video with me leaking to the internets, than risk a chance of, say, my house being raided by trigger-happy adrenaline junkies who’ll break my door, shoot my dog and rough me up before asking any questions (like, “are we at the wrong address?”).

    • Hell, I can’t imagine teachers would be too upset over being recorded either. Nobody lies like kids. If you’re doing your job a video record can do nothing but help you in the long run.

      • My wife, a teacher, suggested as much when I discussed the issue with her tonight. Then I asked how she felt about our kid being the one who is actually videotaped every day. The teacher is on the other side of the camera. Put cameras on teachers and cops, and you might as well put one on every street corner.

  8. LOL. El Mac has some process malfunctions here. He honestly doesn’t see the difference between an employee of the enforcement arm of the state (funded by TAX dollars) vs non state actors with no force of law being forced to wear one. Amazing.

      • While I am at work at my employer, I am on camera. Granted, they are not body cameras, but there are a bunch of them on the ceiling, I accept that as a part of my employment I have no expectation of privacy on their dime. Also, every website I visit and email I write is subject to review. This is a private company, by the way…

        Police, being employed by the public, should have that same level of observation to ensure they are performing their job properly.

        If they don’t want to wear body/dash cameras, find another line of work that doesn’t require it.

      • Do you think its any different than every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the private sector with a 10 megapixel camera in their cell phone? Wake up, man! You know damn well there’s a massive difference between a private citizen, and a state or federal goon. Dont want a body cam? Dont be a cop, “bro”. Simple!

        • @HeySpanky, bro, I don’t believe the G needs to be snooping in on anyone unless they have a court order. Dash cams are one thing, its mounted to a piece of property, but when you start mounting cameras, mics, GPS taggers, RFID chips to people…no way. That goes beyond the pale. But hey BRO, you want to rock a bodycam, feel free.

        • I don’t believe the G needs to be snooping in on anyone unless they have a court order.

          Cops are the G, and the G works for us – we don’t work for them.

      • Your overuse of the word “bro” is pretty indicative of your maturity level, and your comments (and complete lack of anything to back up your thoughts) are pretty indicative of your intelligence. If you have a legitimate concern, please post it (as a few other, more mature commenters here have done). But simply repeating, “G surveillance is bad, bro!” marks you as an immature idiot.

      • Good for the goose and all that…

        Complete and utter logical failure. Police officers are civil servants, agents of the state, operating under the Color of Law, and given enforcement authority, including near impunity in the threat and use of deadly force. Their actions in carrying out their duties are therefore reasonably and morally subject to review and approval by the people they serve. Further, when acting under the Color of Law, police officers have no expectation of privacy in the conduct of their duties.

        Non-LEO private citizens act of their own agency, for their own purposes, and have an inherent and constitutionally protected right to engage in those activities free of interference by the State. Requiring private citizens not acting under Color of Law to wear body cameras would be an obvious, blatant, and odious violation of rights protected by the fourth amendment.

        Unless you want “good for the goose, good for the gander” to apply to the unrestricted carrying of firearms, the nearly unrestricted use of those firearms, and the ability to detain/arrest, and all the other privileges that LEO have that non-badge-wearing private citizens do not?

      • Well, if I were duly authorized to open-carry and enforce the law upon simply donning a body camera, I’d certainly consider it.

        • @Dr. Kenny Noisewater, hey…if you are a CCWer, you might be setting up a sitch where you could deploy your weapon to cap a dude. Best cam up in that case…the public has a right to know.

        • The difference, of course, is that if he’s a not cop and he shoots someone in those circumstances, he’ll almost certainly end up in court facing charges of manslaughter at least, and more likely murder – and no clarity on whether he’d get off the hook or not. Whereas if he’s a cop, he’d get… paid leave? And then maybe a trial. And if there is a trial, there’d be a jury that would believe every single word of his over any witness testimony. And if he’s really unlucky, he’ll get some BS downgraded charge like “negligent discharge of a firearm leading to homicide” stick – but probably not.

  9. Screw ‘cams/no cams’. Just another dog – shot by a uniformed ‘civil immunity shooter’. Pretty damned common nowadays.

  11. Not wanting police to wear body came is like not wanting to see how taxes are spent. If you are to be accountable to the people the people need to see what you do. We are not accountable to the gov. thus they have little business seeing what we do day to day.

  12. Everybody who has to deal with the public should have them this will protect the good person doing his job from the ones who are abusive or criminal.

      • All right Mac, I will play
        I work from home, my employer monitors what I do, my emails, my chats, the websites I visit, ect. Once I am off my shift the monitoring software is turned off. My work now wants to also implement web cams while I am working, my initial reaction, “Damn I will have to start brushing my hair and wear clothes while working.”

        The ones that generally object are the ones who have things to hide, playing video games instead of working, surfing the web for Halloween costumes when they should be working, sleeping when they should be working.

        You go from body cams on a police officer to body cams on a CCW, there is no correlation. CCW are not PAID to serve and protect. When you are done with your shift you also get to turn off your body camera and live your PRIVATE life. You can go and drink a beer, beat your spouse, jerk it to Nancy Pelosi and we are none the wiser but ON the clock, when you are getting PAID to serve and protect the camera is rolling to ensure your doing what your getting paid to do.

        BTW, lots of employers monitor and record their employees and actually baristas are recorded in every area of the coffee house except the bathrooms.

        • @ Morgan.

          El-mac wants to do what he wants while he is on the job. That’s it. He is probably working while depositing all these trolling comments on TTAG instead of doing what he is paid to do. He is not interested in accountability, he is interested in privacy on the job and hugs and kisses for all us “bros.”

  13. @mac.
    Ps. The only thing anyone is going to get from my body cam is bad club music remix, an assortment of gentlemen’s clubs, and iirrefutable evidence that I drink to excess and have poor judgment regarding women. Not to mention an angry, soon-to-be ex girlfriend as a credible expert eye witness….

    • @HeySpanky, well I’m hoping when Obamao gets around to issuing mine, it comes complete with a olfactory sensor. I’ve got something for him.

      • Ill be honest with ya mac. I genuinely share your concern. I dont like the idea of more state surveillance anymore than you. I have a two channel dash cam in the truck, and a quick capture app on my phone, and I hope to god I never need to retrieve the video for self defence from the state.

        • @HeySpanky, I pray you never have to use that equipment either. But if you do, I pray you come out on the clean end of the stick alive and well.

  14. What is stopping civilians from being forced to use these cameras once every single police department has them at the demand of the public. They will say it is for public safety but really it would be public slavery with no one free to do anything without the government knowing.

    • The police *are* civilians, no matter how much they pretend they’re a separate paramilitary organization.

      Cops are government employees with qualified immunity, are authorized to use deadly force, and can arrest and detain you. When they screw up, the taxpayers foot the bill, not the cops or their union.

      There are plenty of reasons that cops should wear body cams, and zero reasons the taxpayers should (or ever will). Though every taxpayer should carry a camera to film the cops at every opportunity — if for no other reason than it ticks off government unions.

  15. Seems there is a LE officer in our midst heavily opposed to being recorded at work. I have no opinion, just a question. Were you this passionate about opposing traffic light cams and roof mounted plate readers as well as the databases they fill?

    • @v v ind, I’m guessing that was meant for me. Not sure. But I’ll voice my opinions on them too – I’m deadest against ’em.

  16. El Mac: I’m really not understanding why you have such a viscerally negative reaction to the idea of cops wearing body cams. It is to their advantage as much, if not more, than it is to the people (and dogs) on the other side of the camera.

    Please explain what’s “bullshit” about this. And please use more than, oh I don’t know, six words in your explanation.

    • @Swarf, JeffG ‘splained it better than I could. But, once again, I’m opposed to any branch of the godvernment requiring citizens of any stripe to walk around and be mandatorily monitored.

      • I’m not sure I consider a government employee able to operate outside the law without any oversight a citizen. They clearly don’t consider themselves civies, and having that sort of power over their fellow Americans should be supervised and accountable.

      • JeffR explained nothing. He did suggest that mandatory bodycams might catch some citizens in a state that citizen might be ashamed of, in which case the citizen should have kept the behavior indoors. He also suggested review boards, but these have not proven to reduce either false accusations of excessive force, or the actual use of excessive force.

        I would point out that people undergoing “the worst moments of their lives” are already subject, if in a public space, to video recording by people other than LEOs. The expectation of privacy in public spaces is neither diminished or expanded by bodycams.

        Not only are we not facing a slippery slope regarding the general citizenry, but actually we face something quite the opposite: We have the public subject to video surveillance at every turn, the files being in the government’s and corporations’ hands. What we don’t have is public-record surveillance of exactly those people privileged to use force, and possessed of qualified immunity as to the consequences. The top of the slope has yet to be covered, though the rest increasingly already is.

  17. I have no problem wearing a high quality camera, as long as I could shut it off on breaks, not dealing with the public, or when I’m in the crapper. I try to get stuff on the dash cam, but they malfunction regularly. It’s one of many pieces of equipment that I have that malfunctions regularly.

    Some here calling for cameras seem to automatically assume guilt if the camera doesn’t work. While I agree that camera malfunctions do appear incriminating, I really don’t desire to be Monday morning QB’ed by folks who think I sabotaged a camera.

    And if you can make police equipment work 100%, and are getting paid less than $75K / year, you missed your calling. Go to your local police office and put in an application.

    On my last shift I literally re-booted my camera system 6 times before it started working. Just like guns break with heavy use, so do police cars, Tasers, and dash cams. I’d be very surprised if body cams ran 100%.

    • As for the crapper and breaks, who could disagree. Abuse of a doughnut is no business of mine. As for the failure of equipment, it is technically possible to establish patterns of ‘unlikely failure,’ and the equipment will get better.

      If the IRS can suddenly have key hard-disks all go bad just when the contents are subpoenaed by congress, and without so much as a citation for violation the Public Records Act, I don’t think you have much to fear from, uh, actual equipment defects. As the market for the gear expands, so the technology will be improved in order to win contracts.

  18. Not only should they wear cams, they should have doggie treats in the cruiser.

    Many years ago before we had leash laws in the county, the neighborhood dogs would chase me when I rode my motorcycle down the street. I started carrying doggie treats and after stopping a couple of times with said treats, they still came after me. However their demeanor was entirely different. Instead of being aggressive, they were happy to see me.

    • Great idea!

      Least amount of force necessary.

      In this case, you’re forcing them to salivate.

      😉

    • Holy crap! Intelligence, like a Postal Carrier. You know, the people who deal with more dogs every week than a cop does in a 40 year career.

  19. I do not appreciate the possibility that the government might monitor my electronic communication. Not because I might have something to hide but because I have a constitutional right to privacy.

    • Too late. It isn’t a possibility, but a certainty that they will monitor your “electronic communications.” The only bright spot is that it is only a computer that will scan your mails and phone records, including actual calls. If your communications do not arouse the computer’s suspicions, nothing more happens….maybe. A human will hear your calls and read your mail only if you unwittingly speak with a dubious foreigner at some point, or otherwise arouse the interest of government….or if you piss off the computer by saying, for example [comment deleted].

    • You have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is not reasonable to expect privacy while in public.

  20. Not only is this a bad shoot, he is a piss poor shot. Should be punished for both. Look at the dogs’ body language. They look up and get happy. “Look! Somebody who will help us!” What a f**king c*nt.

  22. All cops should wear bodycams… or, if they don’t want to, they can do without but get no right to sovereign immunity or benefit of the doubt in court. In other words, if they want to get all the benefits that protect them in uniform, there are tradeoffs that come with the uniform.

    • “In other words, if they want to get all the benefits that protect them in uniform, there are tradeoffs that come with the uniform”

      Yep. People who object to this with the kind of arguments seen above are either being deliberately obtuse or they’re god damn morons. Either way, they probably shouldn’t be cops.

  23. Yeah… sorry guys. I have no outrage over this vid. We don’t know the context and these are roaming dogs. I don’t think I saw any collars either.

    This situation is WAY different than cops randomly killing family pets while they are in their yards or houses where they are supposed to be.

      • I was attacked by two roaming dogs when I was a child learning to ride a bike. They were wagging their tails and displaying the same kind of body language in this video.. until they weren’t.

        I love dogs. I am 999.9% of the time appalled when cops kill dogs in homes and yards. However, from my perspective a dog ceases being a pet and just becomes an animal, and a powerful animal at that when it is roaming.

        If people really gave a shit about these dogs they’d be in a home or on a leash somewhere… or out in the country far enough that nobody would care.

          • I saw a video of one wagging his tail while biting someone’s leg with blood all over the ground. Wagging a tail does not mean much if they bit of half a toddlers face prior to the incident.

        • Let’s just make it easy on animal control and police officers.

          Have them shoot every dog that’s roaming free.

          No more rounding them up and sheltering them.

          Less hassle for animal control.

          Cheaper for taxpayer.

    • I’m sorry dude. But if you can’t see from the body language and demeanor that those dogs are only a threat of slobbering on you while they happily lick you as you pet them, you know sweet FA about dogs.

      • I don’t particularly care. I love dogs but cops are not paid to be dog lovers.

        Whether these dogs are put down at the pound or shot the end result is the same. Pit bulls are the number one breed of dog put down in shelters.

        • “I don’t particularly care.”
          “I never said what the cop/man/whoever did was /right/, I said it’s not worth getting upset over.”

          “I love dogs, really!”

          Sure sounds like it.

        • I don’t make decisions or craft my morals based on emotion.

          I do love dogs. That doesn’t mean I’m going to start crying and cutting myself over a video of random, roaming dogs getting shot.

          Projection – it’s not just something the antis do. It’s also something dog lovers can easily do while mentally replacing the dog(s) they love with images or videos of dogs getting hurt or killed.

        • I love dogs but cops are not paid to be dog lovers.

          That’s right.

          Police are paid to use judgment and proper use of force.

          Clearly, this officer was not doing what he was paid to do.

        • @John

          How do you /know/ that, though? You don’t.

          What, are we requiring every dog gets a fucking trial now? Come on guys, this is ridiculous. A dog is special if it is a pet. If it’s not it is just an animal that can be dangerous (see dingos).

          We don’t know any context for this vid. For all we know, the dog just ripped some kid’s face off. Are you seriously telling me that (if that situation were the case) the dog would have to be gently captured, kept comfortable, and then euthanized?

          More than anything, I just want people to recognize they are having an emotional reaction. I’m getting tired of looking at comments on here where people will point fingers at gun grabbers and “liberals” for their emotional responses and logic, but then turn around and do the same fucking thing when it comes to dogs, or abortions, or homosexuality, or whatever.

          Anyone who claims the high ground of logical decision making must use that style of reasoning /all the time/ or else they lose all validity. How in the hell can so many people of the gun be so smug about seeing the logic of pro 2nd amendment arguments when on other issues they adopt the same breathless, feelings-based arguments the antis use for guns?

          I’m beginning to lose faith in my fellow gun owners. How many people really believe in the 2nd amendment vs. those who were just brought up around guns and see antis as an attack on what is normal for them? The fact is, I don’t have a lot in common with people who make decisions with emotion or don’t have the ability to take a step away from an issue to deal with it rationally.

        • The Bear has some experience here. Pitbulls can look frolicky after they just attacked someone or something. I can’t be the only one here who has experienced that – and I’ve never shot a pitbull. Although I was ready to shoot my buddy’s dog. Sucks, but there it is.

          If my Weimaraner got loose, terrorized someone or something, and got shot by police, it would be my fault. I’ve already fixed out fence gate. I saw my own dog snarl and snap at a small dog walking by on a leash. Thankfully I was able to apologize and get my dog away for the other dog and her owner. And my dog looked fine and happy 30 seconds later. She wasn’t stressed out by the incident because she was the big dog.

          People making judgements of a snippet of video is one of the reasons the video aspect of policing scares the hell out of me. Show the whole video.

          Pitbulls can roam free and terrorize smaller dogs all while looking playful. Heck, there was even a video of that on TTAG, where police had a call of pitbulls attacking another dog. Coyotes can look really playful, also, and can rip little dogs and cats to shreds the next minute. Our neighbor lost 3 cats to coyotes a few weeks ago. Dog / canine behavior is not an exact science.

        • Once again Bear, your complete lack of ability to differentiate behaviors of feral dogs v. somebody’s pet who just needs to be managed correctly, is the core issue here.

          I get it. You’re a scared guy who has no idea how to handle dogs. You should tete-a-tete with your local mail carrier and perhaps he can tun you into Caesar Milan, or at least someone who knows how to deal with the most domesticated animal in our civilization. It’s rather straightforward and instinctive – that’s how we have selectively bred them to be for 30K years.

          These aren’t shifty scheming humans, these are dogs. They always have several tells, all it takes is a room-temp IQ and actually giving a good flying f to know what they are. And pay attention so as to react so everyone goes home unscathed. As it’s part of the job, yeah it’s a requirement.

          Yes, there are Michael Vick’s pets that are trained to bad intent, and will do some terrible things to you if you don’t give them a high-speed lead injection. If one can’t differentiate those dogs a mile a way,. I’m sorry your parents/school/friends failed you. Or maybe you’re allergic, and have really have no clue how dogs operate.

          The ’emotional’ nonsense that you rail on about is your own. Apparently you can’t rationally discern which is which in a few seconds, so you assume they’re all potential killers. That’s a failure of your judgement skills, not those who can readily ascertain the canine they face. Which is the reasonable expectation for anyone with a swingin’ pair, especially if we let them have a badge.

          My grandfather the cop would have called you every modification of ‘kitty cat’, the guys on the squad would have been even more brutal about your lack of manhood, and then drummed you off the force for shooting a non-attacking dog. If you can’t figure out how to deal with a dog, how the eff are you going to figure out how to deal with a broken/malfunctioning human?

          The pansification of America is really becoming problematic.

    • I agree that it’s not in the same category as wantonly killing family pets, but it’s a little disturbing that he draws his gun, then starts calling them over as he advances. If he was just making sure things don’t get out of hand, it would seem that his actions are a little contrary to that.

      But, like you said, no context.

      • The context is really effin simple – no threat, no problem. Any dog you have to call to execute isn’t any kind of frakkin’ threat.

        It’s not menacing, let alone attacking. Quit making excuses for these wimpy f-wads.

        • I’m going to use simple words here since it appears you’re looking at this through a lens of emotion.

          For all we know, these dogs could have attacked someone before the man in the video got there. These dogs could be keeping someone in a home or a car. We don’t know.

          As an adult male, I have personally seen dogs who were being very aggressive to other people act nice to me… because the animal knew it could not intimidate me. I think people are putting entirely too much emphasis on the body language of the dogs.

          First of all, those dogs are too far away and interacted with too little to truly get a read on “body language”. Second, we don’t know if the dogs are reacting differently to the man in the video than others prior to when it was filmed. Lastly and most importantly, roaming dogs are a menace. When dogs roam and start congregating together they lose all fear of consequences and can get dangerous.

          If people cared about these dogs they wouldn’t be hanging out on their own without collars on. So… not feeling the rage here.

          ONE LAST THING!

          Why are we freaking out about the person in the video clucking the dogs over to get their attention and make a shot easier (obviously having decided to take the shot before hand) when we put feed down for wild animals while hunting.

          Isn’t it the same thing?

          Come on people. Use your brains, not your hearts. This is exactly what we accuse the antis of every day, thinking with emotions, and the majority of comments on this page are exactly that.

        • I am using my brains, not my baser instincts. Is the animal currently attacking or threatening to attack? No? Then you call animal control, or if you are the one calling it over, throw a leash on it – (lemme guess you know cops who don’t have a dog lead in their duty bags…). Summary execution of non-threatening dogs (or people) makes them a complete POS not worthy of a badge.

          There is OC spray on the batbelt for a reason. Wanna make sure a dog doesn’t come back? Face full of pepper and they run or curl up in a ball. Amazingly enough, Postal Workers, Utility Workers, and the panoply of folks who work exposed to dogs all day manage to do so without killing a single one.

          The only “unseen” that could justify a shoot is a previous bite and need to identify for rabies. I’m fully aware of what a pack of feral dogs can do, this is not even close to that scenario.

        • @16V

          “this is not even close to that scenario”
          How do we know that is not the situation, though?

          And I never said what the cop/man/whoever did was /right/, I said it’s not worth getting upset over.

        • What’s ironically clear from TheBear’s increasingly emotional comments is that he’s having an emotional response.

          Perhaps it has something to do with his past and unresolved dog issues:

          I was attacked by two roaming dogs when I was a child learning to ride a bike. They were wagging their tails and displaying the same kind of body language in this video.. until they weren’t.

        • @John. I see your smarmyness. ::golf clap::

          After I tell you to go pound sand (go pound sand), I can refute your point by pointing out I spent 6 months of my life weekly, sometimes daily being attacked by Muslims and still have nothing against Muslims. Being attacked by dogs one time isn’t that big of a deal. I used that life experience as an example that dogs can and do cause real, tangible problems. However, people completely mired in their emotional group think cannot recognize that.

          Furthermore, not that it matters since this is the internet and I could be making all of this up, I have owned dogs my whole life and even trained many of the dogs that my friends have owned. I care about my dog more than most people. I mean that too. If I had a choice between saving my dog and a child I didn’t know, I’d save the dog. No hesitation.

          No – I am not emotional over the OP nor the opinions here.

          I am frustrated with the inability of other gun owners to recognize how stupid they look pointing a finger at others for using emotional “logic” then doing it themselves.

          Everyone freaking out in the comments section here over a video where some random animal gets shot would probably be just as likely to “like” the MDA facebook page if they were not raised around guns.

        • So you did one tour in the sandbox, and didn’t learn that all Muslims are sworn to kill you actively, or passively by not ratting out that guy who planted the IED? That’s where your reality break is. I have “Muslim” friends who follow the Qu’ran like my “Catholic” friends follow The Bible or my “Jewish” friends follow The Torah.

          They cherry pick the stuff that is concurrence with what all us atheist humanists believe and discard the rest. Difference being there’s not one Muslim run country any of us would want any part of. Islam is a civilization killer, and has been since it’s founding. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson has done a presentation to illustrate that point.

          If you can’t even differentiate a Muslim from a “Muslim”, then you have no chance of figuring out which dogs are a threat and which aren’t (provided you manage them properly).

    • That can describe pretty much any dog, Accur81. Trash owners = shitty dogs(often times). It’s been said a billion times, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

      Source: I’ve had a pitbull for years who’s a giant baby and has never shown aggression to anything she didn’t feel was threatening her or her family – and even then, it’s never escalated to anything beyond a bit of growling.

      • Sure, it can describe any dog, but a little ankle biter isn’t going to kill you unless you are already mostly dead.
        Pitbulls, Rotts, and other big fight capable dogs, heck Weimaraners and even labs can be unpredictable.

        I wonder if I have to shoot a dog, and TTAG gets 8 seconds of video, if they’ll hate me forever after.

        But hey, I don’t do my job to be popular, and hopefully I can continue to avoid shooting dogs without undue risk.

        • I’ve not seen many people on this site argue against using lethal force *WHEN NECESSARY*. The problem is so many of these incidents could have been handled by non-lethal or altogether non-violent means. As has been mentioned before, postal workers and the like seem to get by just fine without shooting pets – and before someone starts scouring Google for examples I’m not saying there have never, ever been examples to the contrary.

        • I was charged by a neighbor’s off-leash, full-grown Rottweiler while I was minding my own business doing yard work at my house.

          Completely unprovoked, the dog suddenly charged from about 50 feet away up the hill toward me. Growling it’s head off and snapping.

          Was able to fend him off by whacking at him with a rake.

          He scared the crap out of me, but no shots fired.

          Drawing gun should be last resort.

          (At least that’s what every police officer has told me in the defensive shooting classes I’ve taken.)

  25. Forget body cams on cops — put them on lawmakers!

    Although watching House Republicans vote dozens of times for the same thing that they know isn’t going to be picked up by the Democrats in the Senate could be considered political porn…..

  26. “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”

  27. I’m a LEO and I think we should have these:

    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/10/17/trackingpoint-shotglass/

    I’m an honest cop with nothing to hide, I follow dept policy and use of force guidelines at all times. I would have no problem wearing these or something like them. Anyone who is a cop and says they have a problem with wearing recording devices on duty has something to hide. If you are an honest police officer devices like this can help you more than they can hurt you especially when you dont have any reliable witnesses around when the shit hits the fan. Like the incident in Ferguson, MO.

    • Yeah, looking at how Ferguson plays out, it seems that the officer in the spotlight would sure be glad if he wore a cam that day. Would save so much trouble for him, and for the entire neighborhood.

      I actually wish that more people had dash cams and wore Google Glass like things in general. A camera in the hands of a private citizen is a lot like a gun in that it has a marked tendency of curbing corruption and abuse of power.

    • Wouldn’t have mattered if there was video from 3 angles of what Brown did to the shopkeep, or the cop. The animals were looking for an excuse and they found one. Then the race husters arrived and all hell broke loose.

      They got their jimmies rustled when that second POS was killed after actually shooting at a cop. These are complete idiots who claim he was reaching for a sandwich – when all the evidence shows it to be a gun that he fired. Talk about no credibility.

      Had they picked an actual bad shoot (and there’s hundreds to go around) they might have garnered some support. As it stands, they are now seen as animals who need to be dispatched by the civilized world.

  28. I have let people go for minor violations (misd. poss. marijuana) being the most common, because I don’t see the point in ruining some poor kids life, especially when he has no other criminal history. There are many other examples as well that I don’t feel like typing out. I have never shot a dog or violated anyone’s rights. Becarefull what you wish for, all this transparency sounds great now, but I am going to be taking a lot more people to jail now due to my agency’s new bodycam policy. Can’t cut breaks or use discretion when your under the agency’s microscope.

    • So you feel that it’s your job to deal out justice as you see fit or is it dept policy to let people go for “minor” violations? What you consider a minor violation another officer might take more seriously and vice versa. See where I’m going with this? I do agree that nobody deserves to have their life ruined over a little bit of weed but as LEOs its our job to enforce the law not interpret it or decide how its handed out.

      • ” . . . but as LEOs its our job to enforce the law not interpret it or decide how its handed out. . .”

        Thanks for reminding us of this, I’m sure we’d all completely forgotten. [sarc] One of the fortunate casualties of our discussions on TTAG is the loss of credibility given to boilerplate restatements of blue-line rationalizations.

    • ” . . .I have never shot a dog or violated anyone’s rights. . .”

      But I think you’ll admit that every department has cops who rather enjoy shooting dogs. As another LEO pointed out, sometimes it’s because they have an unnatural fear of dogs, but sometimes they just really get off on killing dogs. Cops who really like killing dogs and, for instance, kicking in doors in no-knock raids may have some behavioral problems that ought to be looked at more closely. Body cams might very well help identify the loose cannons on police forces.

      • If sociopaths who became police officers had to wear cameras, they might just decide to go into another line of work.

        Decent officers and the public would benefit.

    • >> I have let people go for minor violations (misd. poss. marijuana) being the most common, because I don’t see the point in ruining some poor kids life, especially when he has no other criminal history.

      This is a very good reason as to why we need to fix those laws. While I am grateful for what you’ve done for those people personally, it’s a hack around the system, and not a particularly good one at that (you might let them go, another officer wouldn’t). On the other hand, if widespread use of cameras results in an increased conviction rate for non-violent and clearly BS “crimes”, that will make the citizenry rebel that much faster, and demand better laws.

  29. I support body cams on officers as well for both holding them accountable and protecting them. The cams could remove a lot of he said she said from encounters with the police. Additionally, recent incidents have caused significant distrust of police if there wasn’t mich already. This would enable more transparency for citizens.

    As an aside, I do know what it’s like to be recorded at my government job. As an army aviator, all of my shots in combat are recorded and Monday morning quarter backed.

  30. Install cameras on every officer everywhere.

    The police love their little night vision cameras, their little thermal imaging cameras so they can see inside people’s houses, their drones, their freeway cameras, their interrogation room cameras, and even their dash cams. They love pulling security camera footage from ubiquitous private cameras spread hither and yon. Let’s not forget their observation via their own eyes allowed by sketchy warrants approved by compliant judges.

    What they despise is accountability and interference with their cover-ups and crimes. Body cameras provide this and thus become the object of armed state agent enmity. Well.

    Suit up, kit out, and be on your best behavior, buddy: you’re on candid camera.

  31. I work for the gov and I issue citations, not law enforcement really, just when your camp fire gets out of control and burns down 90 acres of timberland something has to happen. That being said I wouldn’t mind wearing a body cam but I don’t do shady thing either I follow the letter of the law. Bodycams for police is not the same at all as body cams for civilians, if you don’t want to be monitored on the job either A don’t be a gov employee, or B start arresting the criminals who pop dogs for fun, flash grenade children, and light up vehicles with over a hundred rounds because it’s the same color as a suspects.

    My state has broad public record laws, at any someone can request every email in my work inbox and all I can do is ask how do I get that to you? My salary is public information, as is everyone else who works for the state. Sorry but transparency of our government is a method of preventing tyranny. I have no issues with it, and it serves to be an unbiased witness.

    • @Icyou, you are smoking dope if you think making .gov employees wear body cams is going to stop tyranny. High powered dope at that.

  32. I could get behind officers wearing body cameras while on duty. Seems pretty logical. It also seems logical to me to have the names of SWAT officers to be a matter of public record for the same reasons of accountability and transparency.

  33. Is anyone else wondering if killing your dog is in the list of crimes which justify the use of deadly force?

  34. I work for my state(Florida) and we have a broad public records laws, for example you can see the salary of every state employee, internet is monitored, and emails are available to the general public, as well as nearly anything else, I love it, I believe transparency is key to a free nation.

  35. It’s clear that shooting these dogs was plans a-f at least. He couldn’t even do that much right. Was there no rifle in the cruiser? If he knew he was out to shoot them, he should have prepared for a clean ethical kill shot like any hunter would have been expected to do.

  36. We don’t have the whole story on the dogs, but I will say this: if your three pitbulls are running around the neighborhood unsupervised without leashes you are to blame for their actions and whatever happens to them.

    If they kill someone you should be put to death with the dogs. Period.

    In any case, body cams for all cops. All this Ferguson crap would’ve been over before it began if Officer Wilson had a body camera showing what that criminal Michael Brown tried to do to him.

  37. I also support body cameras for all cops. Any government agent who we invest the powers to enforce the rule of law and act with the authority of the government needs to have oversight and accountability.

    That is way different from the average citizen who is not vested with that kind of power and authority and should not be monitored.

  38. Why bother with a trial? Many people here already have him tried convicted and executed. I hope none of you are subjected to the same treatment if you are forced into a defensive shooting against an animal or person.

  40. Back to the video. 3 dogs pinned some residents in a vehilce? Huh? They couldn’t just drive away?

Comments are closed.