Can the president use executive powers to make the all police wear cameras? Breaking news about

[Maraya1969]

the situation in Ferguson by Attorney General Holder is fucking unbelievable! It proves a systematic attack on the black residents of Ferguson and much of it is done to make money.

The written articles will come out. I just saw this on Chris Hayes

But if there is any time to force the damn police to be followed then it is now

=========== One woman got 2 driving tickets for a price of $150. Now 2 years later she owes over $500 and she has been jailed for a total of 6 days. Eric Holder didn't even know why she owed all this extra money.



I'm adding this article for the people who have not seen the studies of police cameras.

New Publication Available: The Effect of Body-Worn Cameras on Police Use-of-Force

Police Foundation Executive Fellow, Chief Tony Farrar, recently completed an extensive yearlong study to evaluate the effect of body-worn video cameras on police use-of-force. This randomized controlled trail represents the first experimental evaluation of body-worn video cameras used in police patrol practices. Cameras were deployed to all patrol officers in the Rialto (CA) Police Department. Every police patrol shift during the 12-month period was assigned to experimental or control conditions.


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."

http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-cameras-police-use-force

[elleng]

1. All police throughout the country? NO,

of course not. The FBI and other federal police-type corps? Yes. There are MANY individual jurisdictions throughout the country, which makes stuff confusing and difficult.

[Major Nikon]

4. They might be able to influence all jurisdictions that accept federal funds

They probably wouldn't, but it's conceivable they could.

[tritsofme]

5. Congress could potentially place those sorts of restrictions on funds

But it's not something a president could mandate unilaterally.

[elleng]

6. They could try to do that, yes.

[Still Sensible]

2. No. n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

3. Like 10 Trillion cameras aren't fucking enough!!! Who's being watched???!!!

[Maraya1969]

9. The cameras are there to watch the cops. A person who is a witness or a victim is not videotaped

[LiberalFighter]

7. IMO body cameras don't cut it.

They only records what the cop sees. It doesn't record what a cop does.

[Maraya1969]

11. Please look at my oirginal post again please. I've added a study.

[Trillo]

8. I know your OP is supposed to be about Ferguson, and the

unconscionable treatment of blacks in that community by police, however, our entire economic system is a systemic attack on all residents except the exceedingly wealthy.

[TheKentuckian]

10. Negative...I can't imagine how. It would require appropriations for one thing.

Ferguson being horrible and cameras being effective do not translate to legal ground for an executive order.

What law do you propose the EO be attached to? They are an interpretation of laws in place not the ability to legislate.

Now, that isn't to say that no actions are possible at all to be perfectly clear here just that what you are asking isn't plausible at all. The DOJ can take serious measures in Ferguson.