TexasCHLforum.com

MeMelYup wrote: This is a prime example why every State should be "Constitutional Carry."

The MSM doesn't publicize it, but various law enforcement agencies and courts have argued than an individual is responsible for his own defense because the police can't be everywhere for everyone. Makes perfect sense but it doesn't advance the anti gun agenda so it isn't discussed except in pro gun media. In fact, the MSM and the anti gun crowd falsely assert that people should rely on the police when they know full well that it is a physical impossibility for the police to protect everyone and the courts have consistently ruled that the police have no duty to protect any particular individual. This belies the supposed anti gun agenda and makes pretty clear that the real objective of this crowd is to render people defenseless.

A-R wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

A-R wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

A-R wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I think departments should issue body armor and provide a stipend for purchasing a handgun (which I think should, within certain needs dictated by department policy be a personal choice)...or a least a stipend for an officer to purchase his own body armor. Policing is one of the only legitimate functions of government so I have no problem with getting the funds from some other part of whatever budget.

Agreed. Why is this even an issue? Given the last few years the level of Homeland Security grants and surplus military hardware, why isn't body armor and sidearms easily available. To see Strykers piratically given away and officers having to buy their own armor and pistols is unacceptable.

Because the Pentagon gives what they have available. They could give surplus body armor, but unlike vehicles and weapons, body armor actually has an expiration date beyond which it is no longer guaranteed to function as specified (meaning actually stop the types of bullets it is supposed to stop). I know you don't care because you don't care if your agency's officer have armor to begin with - but conscientious police brass do care that their officers not wear substandard safety equipment to better protect the officer from harm and the department, and ultimately the government and your tax dollars from giant liability.

Yes it does, but it's 90% hype by those who sell body armor for the purpose of selling more body armor. Dupont has tested 30 year old body armor and it functions just like it did the day it was made. It does deteriorate if it gets wet and sweat will cause it to deteriorate over time. If it's sealed so it doesn't get wet it doesn't deteriorate. Merely being exposed to the air doesn't result in deterioration. I have some and it is sealed in a moisture proof liner. As long as the liner remains intact and doesn't admit moisture it will be fine.

The funny thing is, your contention that it's a liability issue is more of an argument that officers should buy their own body armor to relieve the department of that liability --or that the department provide a stipend for officers so they can buy their own armor. The department incurs all kinds of costs by issuing it themselves, and IF there is any liability, that too. It would be more cost effective to provide officers with an allowance and have them buy their own body armor. As it is now some departments buy new armor to replace armor that was never even worn and hence does not need to be replaced. A complete waste of money. But hey, just tax dollars, and someone may have a brother-in-law that sells body armor.

Well as long as 30-year-old body armor has the VMI77 seal of approval

I've actually seen expired body armor stop rounds larger and faster than it was rated to stop before expiration. And if you want to wear expired armor to a gunfight, by all means go ahead. But if you want to mandate someone enter a gunfight (police have a duty to act) then you have a moral obligation to provide them with the best equipment for that dangerous job. If and probably, even likely, are not words I want to hear when choosing a life saving device. Would you board a plane that has a 90% chance of completing the flight and landing safely?

Come on, get real.

Wow, talk about a non-sequitur.....well, two non-sequiturs. Dupont did the test, not me. And I have no idea where you got a 90% chance of anything, much less a 90% reliability for body armor number that you're apparently nonsensically comparing to a 90% chance of a plane completing a flight.

Moral obligation this, moral obligation that.....I don't think you actually know what morality is. No one has a "moral obligation" to provide you with anything at someone else's expense. In the first place, no one mandates anyone become a LEO and be involved in a gunfight. That's a choice an individual makes knowing what the risks are --or in ignorance....doesn't matter, if the choice was made freely, the individual is still responsible for that choice and determining the risks. If it were "mandated" and you had no choice you might have somewhat of a point, but your whole argument is based on the false claim that someone is forced to be a LEO.

And wow, because an individual chooses to become a LEO it confers a moral obligation on someone else to provide them with the best equipment? Are you a government employee by chance? A choice YOU make cannot confer a moral obligation on another person. This isn't a world where your choice to do something confers any moral obligation on another person to provide you with the best of anything.

Geez, time to dismount the moral high horse and get real.

Society mandates upon all police a DUTY to act. So yes, society has a moral obligation to provide the best tools possible for police to carry out their duty. Sorry you're so warped by your pseudo anarcho-libertarian belief structure that you can't fathom this concept, but I'm done explaining it to you. YOU stated police are one of the few legitimate government functions. So pony up, man up, or shut up.

I'm done responding to your blather.

But go ahead, type another windbaggery retort if it makes you feel superior.

I'll rest on my morals.

You can't explain what you clearly don't understand so I get the name calling and tap dancing.

I'd just move on but I can't let pass the blatantly FALSE claim that society mandates a duty to act for all police. Courts, including the US Supreme Court, have ruled several times that the police have no duty to act in any specific instance.

This is going to be long winded because I'm going to go ahead and cite the court cases that make it clear that police DO NOT have a duty to act. Since this information should be known to a police officer, and since even if it isn't, it is a trivial effort to find out, I have to conclude, since you keep repeating the duty to act mantra, that you're more interested in mythology than fact:

Let's go with the MSM first:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... .html?_r=0

Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

What do police chiefs have to say on the subject?

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/maga ... e_id=72004

No Duty to Protect: Two Exceptions

By L. Cary Unkelbach, Assistant County Attorney Representing the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, Centennial, Colorado

Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.

Generally, the Due Process Clause does not provide an affirmative right to government aid, "even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual."

Those interested can read the entire article, but I will summarize the two exceptions for brevity: there is a duty to protect 1) a person in police custody; and 2) from State created danger. For example:

At least three circuits have set forth specific tests to determine if a state-created danger exception exists. The Third Circuit requires the plaintiff to show that (1) the harm ultimately caused was foreseeable and fairly direct, (2) the state actor willfully disregarded plaintiff's safety, (3) there existed some relationship between the state and the plaintiff, and (4) the state actors used their authority to create an opportunity that otherwise would not have existed for the third party's crime to occur.

I would think people who have made the effort to obtain a CHL and post on a CHL blog would know this, but....

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/23/nra-p ... o-protect/

“… a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”

“The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.”

Opinions rendered decades ago by the DC superior court and DC court of appeals based on years of SC precedence.

How about a crime in progress that they witness?

http://gothamist.com/2013/01/27/city_ar ... al_dut.php

It later turned out that Howell and fellow officer Tamara Taylor, who were part of the manhunt looking for Gelman, had locked themselves in the front room with the conductor because they thought Gelman had a gun. Lozito told the Philadelphia Inquirer, "When the news was brought to my attention that police had an opportunity to intervene and maybe prevent the whole incident, and it was explained to me they chose to stay in the motorman's compartment instead of coming out, I was very upset."

Lozito sued for negligence, but city lawyers say his demand for unspecified money damages should be tossed because the police had no “special duty” to protect him or any individual on the train that day—there's a long-standing legal precedent requiring cops to put the public safety of all ahead of any one individual’s rights. According to the official NYPD account and Howell’s affidavit, Howell was the one who tackled and subdued Gelman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman

In the spring of 2012, Joseph Lozito, who was brutally stabbed and "grievously wounded, deeply slashed around the head and neck", sued police for negligence in failing to render assistance to Lozito as he was being attacked by Gelman.[17][18][19] Lozito told reporters that he decided to file the lawsuit after learning from "a grand-jury member" that NYPD officer Terrance Howell testified that he hid from Gelman before and while Lozito was being attacked because Howell thought Gelman had a gun.[20][21] In response to the suit, attorneys for the City of New York argued that police had no duty to protect Lozito or any other person from Gelman.[20] On July 25, 2013, Judge Margaret Chan dismissed Lozito's suit; stating while sympathetic to the Lozito's account and not doubting his testimony, agreed that police had "no special duty" to protect Lozito

http://www.ehow.com/list_7573433_respon ... izens.html

There is a common misconception that a police officer's duty is to protect to the exclusion of his own safety. While police department training methods vary between regions, one universal goal of any police training program is to ensure that officers avoid taking unnecessary risks. This means waiting for back-up, working with a partner whenever possible and only using direct confrontation as a last resort.

And in fact, there have been plenty of instances where police waited for backup while people were being killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidr ... s_massacre

Within ten minutes, the police had arrived at the correct restaurant. Immediately, a lockdown was imposed on an area spanning six blocks from the site of the shootings.[13] The police also established a command post two blocks from the restaurant, and deployed 175 officers in strategic locations. (These officers would be joined by SWAT team members within the hour, who also took positions around the McDonald's restaurant.)

The incident had lasted for 78 minutes, during which time Huberty fired 257 rounds of ammunition, killing 20 people and wounding 20 others, one of whom died the following day. Seventeen of the victims were killed inside the restaurant, with four additional victims killed in the immediate vicinity of the restaurant. Several victims had tried to stanch their bleeding with napkins—often in vain.

For 68 minutes, the police took no action to stop the rampage. During this time people were bleeding to death inside and outside the restaurant. Police never attempted to enter the restaurant and the nut job was finally killed by a sniper.

So, neither in law or in actual police procedures is there any duty to act. None. Nada. Zip. Now, there absolutely are heroic LEOs, but there is no legal duty for them to act, and police procedures often call for officers not to act until it is safe to do so. Furthermore, the factual reality is that a LEO who doesn't act will be punished no more severely than any other employee who doesn't do a job. A LEO could watch someone murdered right in front of him and do nothing. The worst that will happen to him is being fired.

Now I agree that most would not do that. Most would in fact act, and most became LEOs to act in such situations, but there is nothing other than their conscience that compels them to do so. And once again, people CHOOSE to become LEOs.

Abraham wrote:Referencing people as "subjects" reveals an us against them mentality...

We are "people" not "subjects".

A word choice that is the product of a Freudian slip or telling attitude? Ashamed to say it didn't register with me first time around. I guess that's a measure of how much I too have accepted how language and meaning has been corrupted in modern America.

A-R wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

A-R wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I think departments should issue body armor and provide a stipend for purchasing a handgun (which I think should, within certain needs dictated by department policy be a personal choice)...or a least a stipend for an officer to purchase his own body armor. Policing is one of the only legitimate functions of government so I have no problem with getting the funds from some other part of whatever budget.

Agreed. Why is this even an issue? Given the last few years the level of Homeland Security grants and surplus military hardware, why isn't body armor and sidearms easily available. To see Strykers piratically given away and officers having to buy their own armor and pistols is unacceptable.

Because the Pentagon gives what they have available. They could give surplus body armor, but unlike vehicles and weapons, body armor actually has an expiration date beyond which it is no longer guaranteed to function as specified (meaning actually stop the types of bullets it is supposed to stop). I know you don't care because you don't care if your agency's officer have armor to begin with - but conscientious police brass do care that their officers not wear substandard safety equipment to better protect the officer from harm and the department, and ultimately the government and your tax dollars from giant liability.

Yes it does, but it's 90% hype by those who sell body armor for the purpose of selling more body armor. Dupont has tested 30 year old body armor and it functions just like it did the day it was made. It does deteriorate if it gets wet and sweat will cause it to deteriorate over time. If it's sealed so it doesn't get wet it doesn't deteriorate. Merely being exposed to the air doesn't result in deterioration. I have some and it is sealed in a moisture proof liner. As long as the liner remains intact and doesn't admit moisture it will be fine.

The funny thing is, your contention that it's a liability issue is more of an argument that officers should buy their own body armor to relieve the department of that liability --or that the department provide a stipend for officers so they can buy their own armor. The department incurs all kinds of costs by issuing it themselves, and IF there is any liability, that too. It would be more cost effective to provide officers with an allowance and have them buy their own body armor. As it is now some departments buy new armor to replace armor that was never even worn and hence does not need to be replaced. A complete waste of money. But hey, just tax dollars, and someone may have a brother-in-law that sells body armor.

Well as long as 30-year-old body armor has the VMI77 seal of approval

I've actually seen expired body armor stop rounds larger and faster than it was rated to stop before expiration. And if you want to wear expired armor to a gunfight, by all means go ahead. But if you want to mandate someone enter a gunfight (police have a duty to act) then you have a moral obligation to provide them with the best equipment for that dangerous job. If and probably, even likely, are not words I want to hear when choosing a life saving device. Would you board a plane that has a 90% chance of completing the flight and landing safely?

Come on, get real.

Wow, talk about a non-sequitur.....well, two non-sequiturs. Dupont did the test, not me. And I have no idea where you got a 90% chance of anything, much less a 90% reliability for body armor number that you're apparently nonsensically comparing to a 90% chance of a plane completing a flight.

Moral obligation this, moral obligation that.....I don't think you actually know what morality is. No one has a "moral obligation" to provide you with anything at someone else's expense. In the first place, no one mandates anyone become a LEO and be involved in a gunfight. That's a choice an individual makes knowing what the risks are --or in ignorance....doesn't matter, if the choice was made freely, the individual is still responsible for that choice and determining the risks. If it were "mandated" and you had no choice you might have somewhat of a point, but your whole argument is based on the false claim that someone is forced to be a LEO.

And wow, because an individual chooses to become a LEO it confers a moral obligation on someone else to provide them with the best equipment? Are you a government employee by chance? A choice YOU make cannot confer a moral obligation on another person. This isn't a world where your choice to do something confers any moral obligation on another person to provide you with the best of anything.

Geez, time to dismount the moral high horse and get real.

A-R wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I think departments should issue body armor and provide a stipend for purchasing a handgun (which I think should, within certain needs dictated by department policy be a personal choice)...or a least a stipend for an officer to purchase his own body armor. Policing is one of the only legitimate functions of government so I have no problem with getting the funds from some other part of whatever budget.

Agreed. Why is this even an issue? Given the last few years the level of Homeland Security grants and surplus military hardware, why isn't body armor and sidearms easily available. To see Strykers piratically given away and officers having to buy their own armor and pistols is unacceptable.

Because the Pentagon gives what they have available. They could give surplus body armor, but unlike vehicles and weapons, body armor actually has an expiration date beyond which it is no longer guaranteed to function as specified (meaning actually stop the types of bullets it is supposed to stop). I know you don't care because you don't care if your agency's officer have armor to begin with - but conscientious police brass do care that their officers not wear substandard safety equipment to better protect the officer from harm and the department, and ultimately the government and your tax dollars from giant liability.

Yes it does, but it's 90% hype by those who sell body armor for the purpose of selling more body armor. Dupont has tested 30 year old body armor and it functions just like it did the day it was made. It does deteriorate if it gets wet and sweat will cause it to deteriorate over time. If it's sealed so it doesn't get wet it doesn't deteriorate. Merely being exposed to the air doesn't result in deterioration. I have some and it is sealed in a moisture proof liner. As long as the liner remains intact and doesn't admit moisture it will be fine.

The funny thing is, your contention that it's a liability issue is more of an argument that officers should buy their own body armor to relieve the department of that liability --or that the department provide a stipend for officers so they can buy their own armor. The department incurs all kinds of costs by issuing it themselves, and IF there is any liability, that too. It would be more cost effective to provide officers with an allowance and have them buy their own body armor. As it is now some departments buy new armor to replace armor that was never even worn and hence does not need to be replaced. A complete waste of money. But hey, just tax dollars, and someone may have a brother-in-law that sells body armor.

A-R wrote:Your oft-posted "law enforcement is safer now" diatribe is simplistic and biased use of basic statistics that doesn't take into account countless societal advances (medical, for example) that make ALL jobs safer now than 100 years ago. Regardless, it's beside the point.

You can call my original moral basis question whatever logical fallacy you want. But if you'll read back through the thread you'll see that the question discussed at the time in the thread was a budget analysis of body cameras and I brought up the point that with departments that cannot even afford body armor (and later discussed cannot afford firearms) how can we in good conscience mandate they pay for the vastly more expensive system of body cams (and associated technology & storage costs)?

Then CedarParkDad and later you came right out and said you believe body cams are more important than body armor. You're trying to justify this immoral stance (placing officer oversight ahead of officer safety) by stating an officer can just easily purchase his own vest (and gun). Let them eat cake, right? Maybe vestless cops should just contact OSHA and force you, the employer, to pony up for necessary safety equipment.

Anyway, I'm glad you finally acknowledge that cops should be provided body armor, firearms, and body cams. Certainly a much more morally defendable argument than body cams instead of body armor.

I get you don't like the statistics and would prefer to dismiss them as "simplistic," but the argument that every job is safer now is irrelevant as the issue is relative not absolute safety. I presented the current statistics for deaths in other occupations and the death rates are much higher in other occupations than law enforcement. This data isn't from 100 years ago, and all of those occupations that were in existence then were far more dangerous then than they are now. That doesn't change the fact that relative to a number of other occupations law enforcement is not particularly dangerous.

There is a political incentive to exaggerate how deadly the job is and I quote the data because that exaggeration is long standing and widespread in the media. I have two sons and I'd rather both of them were cops than any of the other occupations I listed as more deadly. In fact, I have recommended both the FBI and the military to the one in law school as law school has taught him to despise lawyers and he has no interest in practicing law. The other one actually went to the police academy but decided on a science related career instead. I work in the electric utility industry and I'd much prefer a son being a cop than a lineman.

If you want to make the argument that the statistics understate other dangers of the job such as assault you may have a case. I haven't been able to find any statistics that compare on the job injuries between different occupations, though people are severely injured in other occupations as well. But the hype on the danger of law enforcement focuses on it being deadly. Still, over the past 10 years, assaults of all kinds on LEO's have also declined significantly, so by every measure law enforcement is safer now than it was 10 years ago.

Oversight ahead of officer safety is a red herring. The issue of body armor and safety is far more complex than your argument allows. For one thing, lots of LEOs choose not to wear body armor even when it is available. Even special forces operatives choose not to wear body armor under combat conditions at times. I said from the start that they should be provided body armor but we both know that when it comes to money department polices are captive to political considerations and it doesn't always happen. In which case, just like any citizen can decide to purchase a handgun for self-protection and acquire a CHL, any LEO can buy body armor if that is a priority. The military wasn't even providing body armor to all soldiers in combat areas at one point and parents were buying it and sending it to them.

Body armor does not guarantee safety...it is an incremental measure. In 2014 68% of the LEO fatalities were wearing body armor. Unfortunately the stats are not broken down further and I suspect that most of those deaths were traffic fatalities where the body armor was irrelevant. Yes, it provides additional protection and should be provided so an officer has a choice but if we were to follow your officer safety logic to its conclusion then cops should wear not just upper body armor but full body armor with ballistic helmets and face shields and drive around in armored vehicles. They don't do that because it's not practical and there is a trade-off between safety and the ability to do the job properly. To arbitrarily draw the line between one trade-off and another and call one side of the line immoral is ideological posturing.

I am libertarian oriented so in my view a legal system, a military, and police forces are one of the very few legitimate functions of government. I'd strip the so called "education" budget in a heartbeat to properly equipment police and firefighters. I'd increase the intelligence/educational requirement to be a LEO and pay more to attract the best possible guardians of the public interest. We both know the political system has other priorities. This country doesn't even take proper care of its military veterans. So again, we're down to tradeoffs.

As far as your OSHA remark goes....I find it very interesting that you apparently have an impulse to solicit a Federal regulatory agency to coerce funds to benefit police. It's very telling that you're so quick not only to suggest government coercion but to suggest it occur in a way that bypasses the political process. The government agency that provides department funding is the responsible entity for providing body armor. If the funding is inadequate the process is to seek additional funding. Ultimately that may mean increasing taxes with the incumbent political implications. You seem to be suggesting the police should be exempt from that process and obtain their funding at gunpoint...for that is ultimately what government compulsion means.

A-R wrote:Whether or not cops are recorded is not the issue that reveals your anti-cop bias (most already are - dash cams). The issue I have with BOTH of your written assertions is that you both place a higher value on police oversight (body cams) than police safety (body armor). I find that open admission from both of you staggering and very telling of the value you place on your socio-political ideals and voyeristic "gotcha" wants over an officer's physical safety and quite possibly his/her life. Seems both of you would rather see video of an officer shot and killed than to have an officer alive with a slug in his vest but no video to quickly and easily "prove" how nor why.

If you'd said we want body cameras AND body armor, then there would be no issue and no labeling. But you both willfully and seemingly happily announced your twisted logic.

Go ahead and spin this and pontificate all you want. I'm done. Should've stayed out earlier - my mistake.

Nice try. An attempted preemptory strike of ad hominem, name calling, red-herring, and straw-man "arguments." I'll go a step further and state unequivocally that the mantra of "officer safety" has gone way too far and is now to the point where the results of this philosophy threaten public backlash.

It is safer to be a cop now than it has been in about 100 years. I posted stats on another thread proving that assaults on LEOs are at a 10 year low and LEO deaths, unadjusted for population are on a downward trend. Adjusted for population LEO deaths have declined dramatically. For instance, 116 LEOs were killed in 1914, when the US population was about 100 million, less than a third of what it is today. In 2014 117 LEOs were killed. The bloodiest period for US law enforcement by far was between 1920 and 1935. Furthermore, over the past 10 years, traffic related fatalities have outnumbered deaths by gunshot by 605 to 539.

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fat ... a/year.htm

There are no such exact totals of citizens killed by police. Is that because the police are anti-citizen? However, it is estimated that these deaths average around 400 a year. Some claim the numbers are much higher. In 2014 the estimate of citizens killed by police is 593. And that isn't just more than 4 times the number of LEOs killed, it's more than 10 times, because only 48 LEOs were killed by gunshot in 2014, and the same number were killed in traffic accidents. Yeah, cameras are not a panacea but they are an aid in determining if a killing is justified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_k ... ted_States

Furthermore, law enforcement is far from being the most deadly occupation in America. LEO deaths have been hovering around 18 per 100,000 (and this rate includes traffic accidents, not just criminal assaults for which body armor would help). Commercial fishermen have a death rate in the range of 120 to 160 per 100,000. Other occupations that are more deadly than law enforcement: loggers (102 per 100,000), pilots and flight engineers (57 per 100,000), refuse collectors (41 per 100,000), roofers (32 per 100,000), steel workers (27 per 100,000), farmers and ranchers (25 per 100,000), sales workers and truck drivers (24 per 100,000), power company linemen (20 per 100,000), and taxi drivers (19 per 100,000) --approximate rates based on the link provided.

http://pattyinglishms.hubpages.com/hub/ ... erous_Jobs

Everyone should get to come home at night, not just LEOs. Being a LEO is not supposed to be risk free and totally safe, and in fact, can't be and also keep the public trust. It's strange how militaristic the police have become while at the same time eschewing the associated spirit of sacrifice. I entered the military prepared to die in the line of duty. Sometimes we did things that weren't "safe." The military is the public defense against external enemies. The police are supposed to be the public defense against the internal enemies of society. It's not an occupation that can be without risk, but it's not particularly dangerous either and it is supposed to entail a sense of public duty and obligation, just like military service.

The camera or vest "argument" is a false dichotomy. LEOs on this board have said that their departments do not issue them a handgun. Some have to purchase all their own equipment. These polices are known to those seeking employment in a given department. Personally, I think departments should issue body armor and provide a stipend for purchasing a handgun (which I think should, within certain needs dictated by department policy be a personal choice)...or a least a stipend for an officer to purchase his own body armor. Policing is one of the only legitimate functions of government so I have no problem with getting the funds from some other part of whatever budget.

However, just like LEOs are perfectly capable of providing a sidearm at their own expense, along with other equipment, they're also capable of acquiring body armor at their own expense ---IF they consider it important enough. Obviously, many do not. And equally obvious is that fact that much of the time there are officers who don't wear it even when they have it because they feel the risk of not wearing it is not outweighed by the discomfort of wearing it.

OTOH, LEOs are very UNLIKELY to spend their own money on body cameras. Some might, but which LEOs are going to be the least likely to purchase and properly use a body camera? Those who are most likely to transgress and don't want evidence of their transgression. Body armor is also a stand alone item, like a handgun. For body cameras to be effective at protecting LEOs and the public there has to be some centralized method of storing and accessing the recorded video, effort and expense required beyond the resources of the individual LEO.

So, yeah, for all these reasons I think body cameras should be purchased by a department before body armor --not instead of. Just like many departments purchase other equipment and don't issue sidearms. Such a policy does not prevent a LEO from acquiring body armor. Not having LEOs with body cameras does prevent citizens from acquiring some important additional measure of police accountability. LEOs get a choice in the matter either way, citizens do not.

A-R wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

A-R wrote:THIS

There are still officers in small departments who are not issued BODY ARMOR! Let's fix that problem before we start throwing money at body cameras.

I'd rather spend the money on body cameras.
I'd be ok with making that a state expenditure though.

I agree. While I think departments should issue body armor, it isn't so expensive that an officer couldn't purchase his own.

CedarParkDad, I rest my case on your posts revealing an anti-cop tendency.

Another post revealing an anti-citizen tendency.

It's funny how certain people believe that anyone suggesting they be accountable for their actions must be against them. Same tired old style of rhetoric used by the left to silence criticism. Don't like Obama's actions you're a racist. Think Hillary should be prosecuted for her crimes you're a sexist. Don't celebrate gay weddings you're a homophobe. Think the police should wear body cameras and be held accountable for their actions, you're "anti cop."

So be it. Name calling won't deter me from advocating accountability for those who have the power to taze and cage their fellow citizens. It also won't spread love and appreciation for law enforcement. The US Constitution calls for EQUAL protection under the law. Cops are just citizens like the rest of us. If advocating that they be held to account like their fellow citizens is "anti cop" then it's a label I will bear with pride.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

A-R wrote:THIS

There are still officers in small departments who are not issued BODY ARMOR! Let's fix that problem before we start throwing money at body cameras.

I'd rather spend the money on body cameras.
I'd be ok with making that a state expenditure though.

I agree. While I think departments should issue body armor, it isn't so expensive that an officer couldn't purchase his own.