We have been hearing as long as I can recollect that we NEED body cams on all LEOs. It'll keep people honest they tell us. It seems to turn out that it protects LEOs more often than not. But now, the Dems are resisting the body cams because they can record the agitators and the public will find out that these agitators are the same people that go around over and over and over and these "protests" are not organic at all but started with the same professional agitators/protesters. And nobody's arguing that they don't get local people involved. It's just funny how Trump has gotten the dems to twist themselves into pretzels (no, not the pretzel vs brickhouse kind) defending all the things people have always been against.
TM
"resisting the body cams because they can record the agitators" - when/where?
From politico. Just so you can't claim "right wing"
"A push to put body cameras on all ICE agents has Democrats running headlong into a new problem: fear that the technology will provide another avenue for mass surveillance of protesters."
TM, you’re stacking assumptions and calling it a conclusion.
Yes, bodycams often protect LEOs. That’s because most interactions aren’t misconduct. Accountability tools are supposed to protect both officers and the public.
And 'Dems resisting bodycams' isn’t really a thing. The debates now are about privacy, release timing, and data control, not whether cameras should exist. That’s normal policy evolution, not some ideological pretzel.
The 'professional agitators' claim is the biggest leap. Protests have always had organizers. Civil rights, anti-war, Tea Party, BLM, none were random crowds. Organization does not mean conspiracy. And bodycam footage hasn’t revealed some traveling cast running every protest; it shows a mix of locals, activists, opportunists, and sometimes bad decisions on both sides.
Also, if cameras clearly proved the same agitators were behind everything, you’d see wave after wave of prosecutions built on that footage. You don’t.
Bodycams didn’t become partisan. They became what they were always meant to be: a tool that sometimes validates police, sometimes criticizes them, and usually shows messy reality that doesn’t fit anyone’s narrative.
If misconduct still shows up when officers know they’re being recorded, it’s hard to argue it magically started once cameras arrived. The more reasonable conclusion is that cameras suppress bad police behavior, they don’t/didn't invent it. So what we’re seeing now is likely a reduced, not inflated, version of what used to happen.
Body cams all the time to protect everyone, partisanship can pound sand.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Free shipping: VITALMX
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
I wasn't claiming anything, calling you a liar, or picking sides on the matter. I just want to follow along with the evidence you're seeing. Citing something in the OP helps a ton.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
The article focuses on the facial recognition aspect of the surveillance, which isn't an absurd complaint for them to make, but it's silly for anyone to act like the tech hasn't been around the last 10+ years. Body cams should be required by all law enforcement, that just makes sense. It's the extra "features" built-in that could lead down a slippery slope, beyond just ICE.
I did not take your post as calling me a liar. The politico article was one example. I just didn't want the conversation going to "you just have a shitty source"
The way I see it is, no matter what the event/issue is, someone can always come up with a specific reason to claim "we're not against that, we're just against this specific item" to cover their true intentions.
IE: Let's say a particular building is on fire. Everyone should agree to put the fire out. Someone who doesn't like that business, comes along and says "don't put the fire out because toxic water will run into the stream".
There can always be a specific reason to claim that masks your true intentions. But when you look at it as a whole, this is just SOPs for liberals and Trump policies. "We're not against immigration enforcement, it's just the way you are doing it"
We're not against ..., it's just xyz we're against.
TM
Some of them might just be against Trump because its him, or he is a Republican. Just like Trump and republicans have been with Democrats policies.
But there are also a lot of people who do just dislike the way things are being done and do not have a problem if the law was being followed in enforcing the law.
It's interesting to see how You use a different decoder to view Trump than You use to view the opposing party.
If people don’t think we already arent under heavy surveillance from the government they are gravely mistaken.
Body cams will make no difference. It’s better for everyone that LEO’s have them equipped and on.
Most people don't even know by default, police have access to all the "ring type" doorbell cameras. You have to "opt out" if you don't want that footage available to the police. 20+ years ago I used to travel a lot. I'd bring my roller blades with for exercise in the morning before I'd go visit the companies I needed to. LIttle town called Surfer's Paradise in Aus. there were cameras everywhere recording everything, I asked one of the store owners why all the cameras. I was told they are police cameras monitoring for violence. True, not true? That's what I was told. Here we have cameras on just about every intersection. We are so surveilled it's crazy.
TM
I try to give you fair conversations on these topics even if I might not agree at face value. The sources just help understand where your positions come from, regardless if it's "shitty" or not. Again, to be clear, I agree that body cams should be required. It holds both sides of encounters accountable for their actions.
"when you look at it as a whole, this is just SOPs" - Two things can be true, people will disagree solely because it's him, and other disagree because the nature of the policy. Both definitely happen, but generalizing the two isn't a healthy way to debate the matter either. The tech that Palantir's of the world are pushing have some real dystopian consequences if not kept in check, so generally speaking I think there's complaints about surveillance that have merit. That discussion goes well beyond partisan lines/ICE though.
I'll concede that there are some people that truly are concerned with the privacy component. But that horse has left the barn. And, the people that are getting the face time on media cameras are not part of that group.
TM
"Most people don't even know by default, police have access to all the "ring type" doorbell cameras. You have to "opt out" if you don't want that footage available to the police. "
Absolutely false.
Anyone thinking they're anonymous anywhere, needs to watch the film series, spycraft.
Most every move you make out in public is recorded.
You enter every single retail establishment, and their parking lots, recorded.
Credit cards, grocery store discount cards, even cash transactions. Recorded.
Airports, gotcha.
Everywhere you go, your phone tracks you.
Newer cars track and record your trip.
Troopers with license plate scanners.
Everything you've ever done online is stored on servers.
And about those, real ID's.
Everything we do is stored as metadata.
You mean that I might be able to search a database and find all of my 8 and 10 mm sockets?
No, but you could probably find half a dozen kids that you didn't know you had. 🤣
Thanks Bush.
If You have a Gmail account and your location is on on Your phone. It tracks You and records a map. You can go into your Gmail settings and see every place You have ever been while the location feature is on . You can opt out of that. But its on by default. Its wild to see all the data it keeps on You that You can see. The cell phone providers /app makers know more about people than the people themselves.
I'm sure that apple has a similar thing. Smart phones are not much more than tracking devices with mics and cameras.
The facial recognition aspect is a weak argument against bodycam's. The argument implies that people have privacy still. The NSA has been recording everything for the entire time its been around.
That's what a lot of people might say. Do you really believe that it happened because of Bush? Of course the patriot act happened under Bush. But do you really believe that would have passed were it not for the twin towers? And do you really believe the twin tower destruction was NOT planned long before Bush? Our super power status has deteriorated for a long time.
TM
Pit Row
This has been going on long before W.
I'm all for civil liberties and lean libertarian but none of the surveillance stuff in public bothers me at all. Guess I've just never had any expectation of privacy in public so whatever, track my boring life. Maybe I'm off base?
I find most claims of privacy concerns today to be laughable given the terms and conditions people mindlessly accept on the surveillance device that never leaves their side.
Those things are gone forever.
I swear, you can have one one minute, and the next POOF, never to be seen again.
One Nation Under Surveillance….
And the quiet part gets said outloud
I’ll keep my thoughts on that to myself.
I don’t get the obsession with our superpower status. Do right be a good neighbor (country). And if that is your concern our status has fallen rapidly in trumps 2nd term. We are only laughed at by any country not run by a dictator.
Obsession? Maybe necessity. If the US failed as a super power and took a tail spin with liberties such as much of Europe, the whole world will be ran by dictators or parties of dictators. We are it. If we don't have our freedoms and liberties, no one will.
"I don’t get the obsession with our superpower status. Do right be a good neighbor (country). And if that is your concern our status has fallen rapidly in trumps 2nd term. We are only laughed at by any country not run by a dictator. "
If you believe that, explain why all those Europen countries negotiated trade deals that were more fair to us. Or taking more of the financial burden of NATO. I'd posit they were laughing at us every time they shipped over goods and weren't charged any tariffs, or used their tax dollars within their own country instead of investing on defense because they knew we would. Or having us fund the UN and then using the UN to limit our interests. Yeah, I don't think they are laughing anymore.
TM
The problem with body cams is obtaining the footage. It is recording as public information. Then you have to pay out the nose to retrieve and view that supposed public information. If there is going to be a bill that requires all LEO's to wear them, there needs to be a standard for price control of paying to view and retrieve them. When put in the control of municipalities the price for a single video can be majorly redacted and in the high end of 100's of dollars, just for one segment of one video. Not very useful.
Some videos nee to be modified to protect individuals that happen to be in the are and are of no importance to the topic of the FOIA. It may take 5 min, it may take 2 hours. I don't see there being a flat rate.
So.... along these same lines, I feel like the FBI is kind of telling on themselves by coming up with footage from Nancy Guthrie doorbell camera that was supposedly not active....
Post a reply to: Body Cameras For LEOs