1 – Everything you say will be taken down and used against you.
Even what you say before you are read your rights. In the initial roll-out some police departments and lower courts may temporarily assuage this fear. By only allowing cop-cam footage to be entered into evidence if it was recorded after the arrest and ritual reading of the rights. Inevitably, however, they will each reluctantly succumb to manufactured pressure as soon as some high-profile acquittal – most likely in a case involving vulnerable little children – can be portrayed as having resulted in a conviction, “if only our magnificent police had been allowed to show the evidence they already had“. Then, your every interaction with the police, even if you are the victim of a crime, can be used against you. Miranda would have been finally tossed into the dustbin of liberal history.
2 – Videos, just like pocket-books, can get ‘lost’
Requiring cops to make written notes was supposed to prevent police abuses. In a very few cases – such as forensic scientists being able to recreate the incriminating text of a torn out pocket-book page from the tell-tale indentations on the page beneath – police notes have been used, if not to convict a corrupt cop, at least to allow a few of their innocent victims to walk free. In most cases however the police claim that, “my cop-cam malfunctioned that day“, will be taken as read by grand juries, prosecuters, politicians, the press, and public alike.
3 – Cops will violate privacy by sharing videos
Certainly if a cop was caught sharing cop-cam captured crudity on social media she’d be likely to be disciplined. But then, being a cop she’d know full well how much social media has been compromised. So she’d post it on one of the hard-to-trace social sites that cops currently post such material to. As cops are already sharing the material they find on CCTV, siezed mobiles, and porno-scanners what will stop them sharing their cop-cam footage? Of course, if such material were to cause the acquittal or non-prosecution of, for example a bunch of racist murderers as in the Stephan Lawerance case, one should not expect the same amount of media outrage as one would find in a case where more police powers are the given answer. In other words, the press will continue to ignore gung-ho egotistical cops who comprise the criminal trials of the very people they went to so much trouble to arrest.
4 – Cop-cams mean more surrveilance
The footage will be examined retrospectively with speculative searching. As with point 1, such usage, however illegal and unconstitutional it may be, will be insisted upon by raging members of the media waving imagery of dead children around. Budgeteers will soon insist that insurance premiums for cops can be cut by having a single cop-cam wearing officer on patrol, with his ‘back-up’ officer logged in remotely. Facial recognition and a whole host of other data-gathering capabilities will routinely be run on cop-cam footage. Whenever you have any interactions with a cop, who is most likely gagging to pop at a cap at you, she will have even more opportunities available to seek out an excuse if not justification to unload her entire clip into your ass.
5 – Cop-cams do not record what the cops do
In spite of it being the stated purpose, a cop-cam will not, unless the idiot has put it on backward, record what the cop does. It records what everybody else does, so that other cops can examine it in detail later and then print up the arrest warrants and dispatch SWAT teams at their leisure and from the comfort of their strip-joints. A cop would only need to sprint through his patrol, and they can then run identity checks on everybody he passes and round ’em all up later.Tweet