Question: Should body cameras be mandatory for police?

Title: Should all cops have to wear body cameras Content: No, they should not have to wear body cameras. They are put in a position of authority for a reason. The law enforcement officers should be trusted on what they do and own up to their mistakes when the make them. Yes, they do make mistakes, most admit when they do. Should we put body cameras on all criminals after they are released from prison or jail? No, because we put trust in them they will never commit a crime again.

Title: Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Content: I will argue that police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty. Since purchasing body cameras for law enforcement agencies would be a public expense, I will accept the burden of proof in this debate. Sources can and should be posted in text after the arguments they are being used to support. -Power and authority should be accompanied by accountability. This is something that Sir Robert Peel recognized in his principles of policing which were developed to guide the first professional police force. One example: "The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions." Body cameras an oversight tool which can be used to better hold officers accountable and maintain public trust. (Source: http://www.nwpolice.org...) -Body cameras have the two-pronged effect of encouraging police officers to act professionally and also defusing situations with subjects (who are less inclined to behave in discrediting ways when they know they are being filmed). In pilot projects where body cameras worn by police officers have been implemented and studied, complaints against officers have dropped over 90%. (Source: http://cjb.sagepub.com...) -Further expanding on the point of cameras being a tool to defuse situations, they will improve officer safety as subjects will be aware that their actions will be recorded on camera and those recordings could be used as evidence against them. -While cost is sometimes cited as an argument against the implementation of police body cameras, lawsuits against police agencies for misconduct can be extremely expensive for the agencies and the government bodies that oversee them. Body cameras can capture evidence that can discredit false complaints against officers and can prevent frivolous lawsuits from succeeding or forcing governments to provide unnecessary settlements. -Individual officers themselves are protected from false accusations in the form of complaints or lawsuits if they behave professionally and appropriately and their conduct is captured through body cameras. I'm looking forward to further debating this with anyone willing to argue the contrary position.

Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: Today as the con, I am going to prove to you that police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty at all times. My value today is morality. The reason why this is my value because I am going o prove that it is immoral to wear a body camera as it harms the people's rights, and the community as a whole. Contention 1: Body cameras are seen as an invasion of privacy. When body cameras are on, they will capture all civilian and police behavior. Now, not all people would like this. Some people find it very uncomfortable to be recorded while talking, as they find it invades privacy. Current law prevents a search, which invades privacy, and would everyone is not exactly comfortable for recording them, which will be there forever, and it is an embarrassing memory. Contention 2: Body cameras cost too much. A single camera costs about $350. Many small areas do not have the money and resources to provide these cameras for EVERY officer. Doing so would put the budget at a very uncomfortable position, and it leads for more debt to rise. Contention 3: A camera will never replace a whole investigation. Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies. So with these reasons and many more, police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty. I respectfully, but strongly urge you to put a vote in the Con side today. `TheResistance

Title: Should all cops have to wear body cameras Content: I think cops should have to wear body cameras because we want to know the true story on cop killings

Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: So I guess there were two other studies. The policies of the other departments still don"t require body cams be turned on for every civilian interaction. For example in Orlando the policy is:"Officers shall activate the (body-worn camera) whenever there is a potential for dealing with a suspect of a crime," states the policy. It adds that, "(the camera) may be activated whenever the officer feels its use would be beneficial to his/her police duties." http://www.clickorlando.com...The San Diego guidelines advise police to not record victims of violent crime, or record peaceful protestors, when they perform their protection duties at those. http://voiceofsandiego.org...We can see that my opponent is advocating for a policy that has likely never been implemented before, and using data from studies that never required police to record all civilian interactions. If my opponent wants to replicate the results of those studies, he should follow the body worn camera guidelines they have. Not create his own unproven guidelines. My opponent should lose because the use of bodycams can be implemented with the same results, and without requiring the use of bodycams in every single civilian interaction.Impact analysisI"ll keep this short. There isn"t much to say, because this is such a clear loss for my opponent. Even without me adding anything. My opponent must show that bodycams should record every single civilian interaction. He has not done this. He has showed the usefulness of body cams for sure. Officers should use them for traffic stops, and when responding to service calls, but he has not given a single good reason (or any reason at all) to use them when talking to informants are victims of violent crimes. He needs to give some good reasons as to why bodycams should be used while talking to victims of violent crimes or why informants who may have to admit their own illegal activity to help a cop catch a bigger fish, should be recorded. I haven"t won because I"ve presented some sort of compelling evidence that police shouldn"t be wearing body cams in every interaction with civilians (I have). I"ve won because my opponent has failed to give a single reason why informants and victims should be recorded.Responses"In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such)."I have not insulted anybody, but this is an insult. How dare my opponent say an accident where I killed somebody and watched their mangled body squirming in odd and inhuman ways on the ground is not traumatic. How dare my opponent say I was not a victim who has had to live with the knowledge I have killed somebody, because of his own criminal behavior as well as the behavior of his buddies. My opponent should definitely lose some conduct points for this rude behavior. Between the conduct point, arguments and loss of the source point, my opponent cannot be allowed to win this debate."I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera."This is silly to even say. There is a huge difference between talking with a cop who is acting like a trusted confidant, and talking to somebody with a camera where the footage will be reviewed by whoever puts it in the database, the chief of police, the district attorney, 12 jurors, a judge whoever happens to be in the courtroom that day, and numerous media outlets displaying the footage to millions of people. Without the bodycam a victim is crying on the shoulder of a trusted confidant, with the body cam (AKA evidence for a court case, likely pulled up by the defense team to find tiny contradictions), the victim is talking to a large group of people. The situation with an informant is worse, especially if we are dealing with organized crime. Way to give somebody the death sentence who gave a police officer who used his information to bust a hitman pro. "This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case?"This is what a written witness statement is for. The victim can type down a statement about what happened, and still have a shoulder to cry on where she can say whatever she wants (Personal wise not evidence wise) in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event. I won't even respond to the discretion point too much. My opponent has completely went off the rails with it. Just read my previous round to see how I"ve already addressed every single thing he says. Look this is a clear win for me. Do the right thing. Thanks voters.

Title: Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Content: Now to be honest I actually agree but I am board so why not, I think that body cameras might be extreme. Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race but what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. and i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things.

Title: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Content: Hello once again, I am Forever 23 and I will debate that police body cameras must be implemented. Firstly, I would like to to a rebuttal of my opponents refutations (he has not brought up any point and no new arguments in round 3), restate my assertions and summarize my plan. So first of all, I would like to point out that throughout his refutations, my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments, instead of letting the message pass on as a whole. Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government. However, the people agree with the government. The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished. The proposition team agrees that fairness is completely subjective. However, in our era, in our nation, there are certain moral values. Value that are followed because they are accepted by the general public. If the public did not accept these values, they would be different. Something subjective stays in place as long as the majority accepts it. Nobody is forcing "fairness" onto anyone. The people are accepting and praising the current moral standards. To take the root and heart of their refutation, " Body cameras will allow one group of people to force their own subjective ideas of "fairness" unto other people. That was my point. ". Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace. Body cameras fit the current "fair" which makes the implementation of them necessary for the US government- a government based on the values THAT THE PEOPLE CREATED, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Next, he mentions how once again everything is subjective. He expecially attacks the point on how genocide does NOT help the public by mentioning that some people thing that it does. He points out how Hitler thought that it was beneficial. Hitler was a man WITH AN INSANE MIND. It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong. If you come up to a stranger on the street and ask, "Why is murder wrong? ", the most common response will be, "Just because it is wrong". The majority of the public holds the opinion that both genocide and murder are wrong, making it applicable. And while a subjective opinion is applicable and accepted by the general public, it must be used and applies. Same with body cameras and modern day laws. Most have the subjective opinion that police officers should wear cameras. That makes it applicable. Since it is applicable, it must be implemented. My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case. Now, I would like to point out that my opponent has completely misunderstood all of my arguments. 1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force. 3. The majority supprots this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. Overall, I would just like to summarize by saying that my opponent failed to understand and address 3 of my claims and my plan. Finally, to restate my plan. The Transcendent DrivePro Body camera will be put on all police officers. Well, how is it affordable?

Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: 1. Body cameras can help an investigation. First of all, direct evidence is the best evidence possible. Having these officers wear these body cameras helps the judge to make an educated decision, and to make sure no officers are help wrongly at fault. Second of all. it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie.

Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: Sources My opponent has listed 3 links that merely go to the front page of 3 news sites. These sources do not verify the existence of 3 different studies done on police body cams. He should be deducted source points for providing fake links, and punished accordingly. He should probably also be deducted conduct points, because I"m only aware of one major study done on police body cams. I assume he lied about the number of studies found. Use of Force and Civilian Complaints I"m going to go ahead and concede these points, because they don"t matter. They are also a waste of time, though I could easily shed serious doubt on them. The debate is not whether police body cams are useful, or should be required. The debate is whether police should wear them in every civilian interaction. You can support body cam usage and still be opposed to them recording every interaction. Now I support officers turning them on during traffic stops, or during calls into tense situations, but when dealing with a rape victim or an Informant (for example), the officer should be allowed to turn them off. What reason is there to record an informant telling the officer about some drug dealers on the corner, openly selling? It has the down side of preventing informants from speaking, while carrying absolutely no upside. Responses "In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information." This is just stupid. This is not Law and Order SVU. Often times detectives don"t even talk to victims. I was personally in a situation, where I killed an escaping robber. His friends actually ran off and let him to die. I was never once talked to by a detective, and was later issued a subpoena for court, never talking to a detective at all. The only people I talked to were first responders. This is how the real world works. Most victims of crimes, only talk to first responders. The witness statement they write up should be enough. They shouldn"t have to have a camera in their face, during the worst time of their life. Beyond that, you have yet to state a reason why victims or informants should be forced to be recorded. My opponent most likely attempted to link to 3 articles on the same Rialto California police body cam study. What my opponent doesn"t realize, is that even during these studies, the body cams weren"t rolling during every civilian encounter. There is no police department in the United States that requires that. According to Police One who reported on the study, and on whose article a link to the study can be found; "For 12 months, Rialto"s 54 frontline officers all were assigned randomly to wear or not wear TASER HD Axon Flex video/audio cameras attached to their clothing during each of their 12-hr. shifts. On shifts when they wore cameras, "the officers were instructed to have them on during every encounter with members of the public, with the exception of incidents involving sexual assaults of minors and dealing with police informants," the study team explains." https://www.policeone.com... So even the studies my opponent are linking to, don"t show the results of every police interaction with civilians. No such study has been done, nor will it be done. "In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion." The whole point of personal discretion that nobody is in the officers shoes and can judge that better than him. If an officer has somebody sitting over his shoulder judging every discretion as either good or bad, and punishing or criticizing him for what is viewed as bad discretion, well that takes away the discretion altogether. Now there are certain laws that are known as "must arrest" laws, and officers are required to arrest for those laws or risk termination, but that is not what we are talking about. We"re talking about the discretion of whether or not a jay walker is ticketed, or whether a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering. The officer needs the discretion of whether or not to lock up somebody for public intoxication or not. Without this discretion, this country will turn into one where anybody can be arrested or fined for just about anything. Most legal experts believe that the average citizen commits 3 felonies a day. http://www.wsj.com... You certainly can"t tell an officer he can"t use his discretion to fine or arrest somebody who broke a law, so now with the second guessing for free passes, you incentivize officers never using their discretion to give somebody a free pass. With the fact that every single one of us breaks the law, every single day. This becomes a very dangerous thing to incentivize. Conclusion My opponent has not disputed my claim that leaks of footage can and do happen, embarrassing people unnecessarily. This is a point in my favor. He is acknowledging that people will be seen in their most private moments, when they should not have been. My opponent brings up some good reasons to have body cams, and I agree with them. However he has failed to show why they should be used in every single civilian encounter. The Rialto study showed that using the cameras in most civilian interactions as opposed to all of them, got the desired results my opponent is asking for. If the Rialto study was so successful at getting the desired results without shoving a camera in a child victim"s face or without compromising confidential informants, why don"t we replicate that study in real life?

Title: Crime cameras Content: Police should not waste time watching crime cameras

Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: Let's look at your rebuttals. "2. There's already a fund for the body cameras." Not all officers wear body cameras. Many more officers still need body cameras. So therefore, that leads to MORE spending, which decreases spending in more needed areas. Currently, there isn't a fund for body cameras. "3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie." Interesting point. Body cameras cannot lie, but however, they degrade civic values, which adds on to the morality of my cameras, which are wrong. Camera speed differs from the speed of life, and your body may block the view of the cameras. 1 camera might not be enough. If someone robs a store, they won't just look at 1 camera. They will use multiple cameras. 1 camera, at one point of view, cannot replace 1 through investigation. Just because we saw a masked person kill another person, do we know who the masked person is? Of course not. We still have to do more analysis for the blood and fingerprints. "4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game." The reason why these people have to play the guessing game is due to the fact that they have only 1 point of view. The officer has to then guess the conditions, and then assess a 1 sided pov, unlike the many witnesses with many pov. "5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves?" The Witnesses have to tell the truth no matter what. The courts will protect them. I have shown all the bad things about the body cameras and added in my values, which my opponent has failed to provide. The cost is just to expensive, and cameras can't replace an entire investigation. So with these reasons and many more, you should deposit a ballot in the Con side today. ~TheResistance

Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: Framework The resolution says police should us body cams in civilian interactions. The wording of which and the lack of mentioning any exceptions to the rule of requiring body cams in civilian interactions, implies that they should be used in all civilian interactions. This is how the resolution is written, and should be interpreted. Privacy Concerns There are some definite privacy concerns with body cams. Police don"t only deal with suspects of crimes, and traffic infractions on a daily basis. Officers also talk with witnesses and informants. They talk to rape victims. They also are sometimes the first to arrive at car crashes and interact with the victims of horrible tragedies. The main concern is that all the footage would be public property and therefore public can get access to it through the freedom of information act, but even if laws were made to protect the privacy of people, leaks still happen and the civilians still know the film is being made which has an effect on their psychology. You can easily go to youtube and already view dash cam footage of a lot of people in the worst moments of their lives, we don"t need to make this problem worse. Informants, many of which are in the criminal underworld will be less inclined to provide evidence needed to capture and prosecute dangerous criminals. Scared and shaken witnesses will also be more scared to and less inclined to give information. An officer talking to a 7 year old who just watched his mother raped and murdered, does not need to have a camera in his face bearing witness to and forever immortalizing the greatest tragedy he will ever face. Even when filming the arrest of somebody perhaps a batterer, the officer is often going into a private residence and there is all kinds of private information lying around, and no way should a victim of domestic violence have her private life exposed to whatever prying eye makes a FOA request, or youtubes the video, because some cop thought the interaction was funny enough to upload on the internet. Bureaucracy concerns Just like any other occupation, and especially with government agencies there can be a lot of bureaucracy. There is a lot of concern that having police cams on too much can make the jobs of officers harder, it can also make it harder on good cops. Right now an officer has a lot of discretion. If he sees an old lady in a dangerous neighborhood with an unregistered gun, he can turn a blind eye but with the cameras, he may be forced to prosecute every single tiny infraction. If you think broken windows policing is bad now, just wait until the police can no longer let little things go. The cameras can be used for his bosses to nitpick about every tiny thing he does, from improper uniform, to some off the cuff remarks to fellow officers. Everybody needs to blow off steam on occasion, and especially so in a high stress jobs like policing. Conclusion I know everyone thinks these body cams will be used to keep an out of control government in check, but in reality, just like every other tool. It will be used against citizens. Anyone can watch Tru TV and see "Top 20 Drunks" shows, shaming people seen in dash cam videos or videos in a police room, we don"t need to embarrass random people by allowing these shows more material. We don"t need to handcuff good cops, by forcing them to lose their discretionary privileges. If unjust laws are made, we"re somewhat protected by the fact that cops can use their discretion to stop enforcing stupid laws, with body cams you can forget that. Vote Wylted

Title: Police abuse crime cameras, leering at women. Content: Surveillance cameras are often used by police to leer at women, instead of to fight crime. This unfortunate abuse is common, crude and undignified, and a distraction for police from their real duties.

Title: Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Content: Also, I'd like to apologize for the lack of formal rules and structure to this debate (I am new to the site and this is the first debate I posted); we'll have to freestyle this. Now then, addressing your points in order: --- "Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race" I'm sorry, I don't entirely understand what you mean by this (I'm assuming that "betting" is a typo there). But I'm going to infer that you mean to bring up racial profiling here. I would actually counter that body cameras can serve to reduce racial profiling in that they can be used to show that officers had probable cause in their interactions with subjects (including minorities). It makes it more difficult, if not next to impossible, to fabricate evidence or charges. --- "what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. " With respect, I don't see how it would. During a physical altercation it is certainly possible that a camera could be knocked off. It happens in this body camera footage for example: But officer safety takes precedence over protecting equipment so I don't see how wearing a body camera could put officers any more at risk. Keep in mind they already wear a lot of equipment on their person. Anecdotally, I was an LEO who wore a mic (but not a body camera) at all times on shift, I never once felt it posed an officer safety threat and I'm struggling to imagine how it could. I'm open to further argument on this point if you could elaborate. --- "i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things. " Again, I'm sorry but I don't understand the last half of this sentence. I will, however, address the first half: Dashcams are already standard in police cars but they have several disadvantages compared to body cameras. For example, they have a static position. Body cameras are dynamic and move along with the officer's POV. This is an instant process and they do not need to be adjusted. By contrast, with a dashcam at best you can orient it to face a specific area you believe will be most relevant to capture footage, but that both requires foresight to do (which is difficult in the heat of a high stress situation) and will not follow the officer and/or subject if they move out of the line of sight where the camera is oriented.

Title: If a person has nothing to hide, then there is no issue. Content: Cameras are there to protect the public. They are not in place to spy on people and have no interest in the personal lives of those on camera. The only interest is in the people breaking the law. If a person has nothing to hide then they should have no problem being filmed, they should be thankful that the authorities are trying to protec them and their peers.

Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: Today, my opponent did not answer the clear contention 1, which is morality of the cameras. This proves my 1st contention that it does invade privacy, and since my opponent did not answer, she agrees with the point. Also, she did not even touch on my 2nd contention that body cameras cost too much, which pads on to her agreement with my point. There are 2 points she agrees with the con, because she did not touch on. Let's look at her case. Value: She has no value what so ever, which adds on. Contention 1: "Body cameras can help an investigation" As said by my con contention 3, cameras can only see 2-D. As my contention 3 states, "Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies." As seen, we will have to play a lot of guessing games, as it can only see 2D. We cannot see the background or the situation the person was in and why they reacted that way. Witnesses are emotional, unlike cameras, and can see 3-D, which can then see more things, and prevent people from playing the guessing game. Also, a camera cannot always replace a full investigation, which my opponent refused to answer. Let's look at her next contention:"it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie." Interesting. Witnesses do not lie, because they will have to swear they will tell the truth before their testimony. So with these reasons, my opponent does not have a value, while I have provided the true value of morality,and my value criterion is enforcement(i forgot to add), which she has not provided, has failed to answer to 2 of my contention, which suggests she agrees with them. She hasn't really proven any what so reason why cameras can see more clearly or why witnesses are inferior to cameras. So by what's obvious today, vote Con! `TheResistance

Title: Police should not waste time watching crime cameras Content: It is a waste of police resources for officers to spend significant amounts of time watching surveillance cameras for signs of criminal activity. Their time would be better spent patrolling the streets.

Title: Crime cameras Content: Cameras help protect citizens' liberties against crime.

Title: Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy Content: There has been much debate as to whether public surveillance or the existence of cameras in public places is an invasion of privacy. A few have made reference to the fourth amendment and its protection against unreasonable searches as a key element to discourage such practice. Nevertheless a tsunami of public cameras has flooded out neighborhoods, primarily used as a means of enhanced security especially in areas where police officers are not able to be present. In a recent article posted on cbsnews.com titled "Surveillance cameras and the right to privacy", law enforcement officials assert that an increase in high-tech tools such as cameras was a big reason why violent crimes nationwide decreased in 2010. Citizens should demand their rights to privacy! This is a claim that, like me, many others concur. However should we sacrifice our need for safety and security simply to avoid being featured on public camera casually walking down the block?

Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: I believe that CCTV cameras should be installed in every public space where possible; on the streets, inside public buildings and (ideally) in remote areas such as fields and forests. The end result would be a world where everything is recorded on camera except for events that take place within private property and homes. The benefits of this would outweigh any consequences for one pivotal reason: Any crime that takes place in public will likely be solved. The suspect has nowhere to run; the police can trace the suspect's movements right back to his home address, where they can visit and subsequently arrest him. Kidnappers, murderers, rapists -- everyone will be caught and brought to justice. You will be CON; you will argue that CCTV cameras should not be in every public location.

Title: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Content: "my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments" I actually copied and pasted literally all your arguments, which you, very conveniently, listed. Here is the exact quote: "Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan. So, my points were: 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras." And here is how I copy these points and provide counters: "So, to re-state my counters to your arguments. 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. That being a good thing is merely your subjective opinion, not a fact. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. Again, your own, personal morals. Just because you, subjectively, believe it to be a good thing does not mean it actually is. Moral relativism. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Which does not mean that it is right thing to do. As I stated earlier, argument on grounds that something is right simply because majority believes so, is illogical (ad populum). What is "right" can be decided by each culture, or individual himself." Thus, I took into account and replied to ALL points. No cherry picking took place. "Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government." I did not. Here is exact quote. " The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair." "What you are arguing here, is essentially to force your cultures and majorities values unto those who disagree." It was acknowledged that government will have majorities support. "The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished." Ad hominem. The sane agree with me. Implying that those with different moral standards are insane. Text-book ad hominem. "Nobody is forcing "fairness" onto anyone." They are, on minority. On those few who disagree with their ideas of fairness. "Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace." Which is still a group... thus my point stands. " It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong." FOR THE RECORD- I DO NOT SUPPORT MURDER. I BELIEVE IT TO BE WRONG. That being said, unlike my opponent, I realize that this belief of mine is merely a personal opinion. It will be pleasure for me to inform my opponent that up until this day, no set of morals have been proven to be objectively correct to any other set of morals. Thus, morals are subjective. deal with it. My opponent believes that his personal, as well as his cultures morals are objectively correct, which is the problem. On a side note, I am not arguing that society can't and shouldn't enforce their subjective understanding on others. Society must exist somehow, which means laws must be enforced. I fully support that. What I explained in first round, was that if one day society and government will come up with unacceptable morals, those who disagree with said morals will have no way to avoid unjust punishment. This is why, in my opinion, we should not give government (and majority) full control. There must be a back door for instance if society turns evil, so that you could escape. "My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case." I do not, but this is my personal opinion. I realize that me NOT supporting genocide is merely my subjective opinion, not objective truth. "1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system." It will lead to a situation which is classified by majority as "lower racial discrimination". Whether or not their classification of what counts as "lower racial discrimination" is objectively correct, is unknown. "2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force." And while it might be that police officers will use less force, it is only assumed by my opponenet that using less force is a good thing. If person does not agree with this premise, then this argument holds no merit and does not lead to conclusion that police should wear body cameras. 3. The majority supports this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. I realize that. It was acknowledged by me on several instances. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. You are drawing conclusion on what is beneficial for US citizens based on your own personal values. It is you who believes that less discrimination = beneficial for US citizens. If all your arguments are based on your personal values, then one has to simply reject your values and the conclusion (that police should wear body cameras) will not logically follow.

Title: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Content: * This is not necessarily a round of police debate* Humanity has been on an ever eternal quest in search of felicity and safety. However, throughout mankind, there has been a series of crimes gone unsolved and detectives failing to solve assigned mysteries. Sadly, all have been failing to notice the very blatant solution to all of these. A way to ensure public safety and solve crimes is right in front of us and the proposition team wants this resolution to be implemented. Hello, I am Forever 23 and I am going to debate pro on the topic that police officers should not wear body cameras. I will first provide definitions and then introduce my own points. Body cameras- The cameras put on the uniforms of the police officers. They are of very high quality and NOT easily breakable. Now onto my own points.1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. Racial apartheid in the police force may seem impossible and implausible. However, that is the current reality. Today’s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. In fact, many times, the fortune and faith of the one convicted will depend on his race, ethnicity and skin color. Cameras however, will provide a much more objective view on the situation. Nothing can bestow more truth than the situation itself on a video. . http://www.discoverthenetworks.org..., "Los Angeles congresswoman Max Waters thinks that the system is racist, she stated that “the color of your skin dictates whether you will be arrested or not, prosecuted harshly or less harshly, or receive a stiff sentence or gain probation or entry into treatment. ” The late law professor Derrick Bell claimed that the justice system “disempowers people of color. ” At a presidential primary debate in 2008, Barack Obama charged that blacks and whites “are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, [and] receive very different sentences . .. for the same crime. ” That same night, Senator Hillary Clinton likewise disgrace the “disgrace of a criminal-justice system that incarcerates so many more African-Americans proportionately than whites. ”"The only way to ensure honesty in our justice and jurisdiction system is by having objective footage. The “he did it because he is African American” approach is not the way to go. The only way to make this system more fair to those of different races and skin colors is by implementing cameras. The real video will show what really happened, not from different people’s point of view. The video is better than any testimony. Since, African Americans are judged many times by the skin color in court, they mostly get unfair punishments. In order for the punishment to fit the crime and to know what the crime even is, we need cameras on officers. Cameras on police officers will stop deliberate, false accusations against African Americans and make the justice system much more stronger and efficient. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. . http://www.cam.ac.uk..., "Knowledge that events are being recorded creates "self-awareness" in all participants during police interactions. This is the critical component that turns body-worn video into a 'preventative treatment': causing individuals to modify their behaviour in response to an awareness of 'third-party' surveillance by cameras acting as a proxy for legal courts—as well as courts of public opinion—should unacceptable behaviour take place. According to, . http://phys.org..., " During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures. . http://www.cam.ac.uk... "The 'preventative treatment' of body-worn-video is the combination of the camera plus both the warning and cognition of the fact that the encounter is being filmed. In the tragic case of Eric Garner, police weren't aware of the camera and didn't have to tell the suspect that he, and therefore they, were being filmed," said Dr Barak Ariel, from the Cambridge's IoC, who conducted the crime experiment with Cambridge colleague Dr Alex Sutherland and Rialto police chief Tony Farrar. The belief in police officers is at an all time low. That is quite harrowing because officers are the ones who protect us and safeguard us. People seeing officers as pernicious is not the way to benefit our society. In fact, many people dislike police force because of the utmost use of force. With officers being aware about the cameras strapped to their chest, they will be less likely to provide a criminal with unjustified force and more likely to do their jobs with fairness and the not needed force. That will result us in a much stronger police system and at the end, a stronger nation itself. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. The people of the USA see the benefits of the propositions plan. The majority of the US citizens want to see the plan in action. They want to ensure a safer future by not only arming officers with guns, but also giving them cameras to record the happening events. Judge, we need to listen to our public and make the safe. We should give the people what they want because in this particular case, the implementation of cameras will provide support to the security and democracy of the public. According to Huffington Post, 56% of voters stated that police body cameras would be beneficial to the police force. 13% stated that it will protect the unalienable rights of the US citizens. 25% of the poll takers figured that it would invade the privacy of people.6% figured that the officers should have the choice. 65,064 votes were supporting the resolution and 28,272 were considering this an invasion of privacy. . http://www.nbcnews.com..., Tracey Knight, community liaison and PR officer for the Fort Worth Police Department, told NBC News. "However, more and more officers are requesting to have one issued to them and some have even purchased their own. "The people want it! The officers want it! The officials want it! The question is, then why not? Most people from different areas including the police officers themselves are willing to record the data happening on the streets. They are willing to have objective, documented footage. People are waiting to switch from the “he did it” and the “no I did not” approach. The citizens of the USA are willing to make this nation change for the better and with the substantial support and assistance, the propositions plan will be able to function and even support the stance on majority decides. The propositions team plan is to make it required by law for every police officer to wear the Trascendent ProDrive Body 10 Body Camera. It will be very effective for this cause. I will further expand on this in the 2nd proposition speech.

Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: Wow... I'm incredibly sorry about my initial sources. I had the same debate with someone else, but he bailed. The old debate was automatically deleted, so I started a new one. I copy and pasted my previous opening statement from that page, and apparently the links didn't copy properly. Here are my actual sources: http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org... (this is the Rialto study my opponent mentioned) http://www.latimes.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Getting on with my closing statement... Police body cameras are a step in the right direction for improving police practices. The evidence shows that police body cameras reduce the use of force and complaints levied against the police. Police body cameras would also be instrumental in protecting police officers against false allegations. In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such). Further, he has not supported his contention that cameras will offend traumatized victims with any evidence, just conjecture. My opponent seems to have a gut feeling that it is the case. Honestly, I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera. This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case? My opponent is either failing to acknowledge or is downplaying the fact that discretion can be used poorly. LEOs have a lot of power. That power is meant to be held in check by their superiors. Just as you say discretion can be used to not enforce an unjust law, it can also be used in a corrupt or otherwise illegal manner. We should not give such massive amounts of power to LEOs and then refuse to supervise them and hold them accountable. Also, I will restate one of my previous points: the law enforcement hierarchy understands and respects the role of discretion. Your example of "a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering" is, well, ridiculous. What police chief is going to look at that situation and demand swift justice? If he did, there would be riots.

Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: The idea for this challenge stems from a forum topic discussing the same issue: whether or not one is within their legal rights - or should be within their legal rights - to record interaction between civilians and police officers. As it stands, over a dozen states prohibit at least audio recording - if not both audio and video. In fact, many people have been arrested, charged and prosecuted with crimes for recording the police interacting either with others and/or themselves. The PRO advocacy is one in favor of personal freedom, while the CON presumably will defend the law's right to keep certain information private for safety and security reasons.

Title: A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Content: Although citizen video recording can prove indispensable in upholding police accountability, there are other means which introduce fewer hazards to members of the law enforcement community. For instance, mandating the use and effective archiving of footage from dashboard and lapel mounted recording devices would ensure that interactions with uniformed police officers, namely traffic stops, are properly documented.If citizens were given carte blanch to record law enforcement at will, laws prohibiting the outing of undercover officers couldn't be enforced. This could both compromise said officers' personal safety, as well as undermine important criminal investigations. Also, ambiguities exist pertaining to whether a specific interaction between a LEO and another citizen could be considered an 'interaction with police' for the purposes of this proposal. A criminal operation with enough resources could potentially monitor police activity to assist in evading detection. Another example is the use of digital means to expose traffic patrols among motorists, allowing reckless driving habits to go unchecked. This proposal would sanction practices like these as well as other criminal tactics that hamper law enforcemnt.A more prudent solution would be to afford immunity to those citizens who expose police wrongdoing, as well as the above-mentioned mandate on archiving police footage. While an outright ban on citizen videography is far from legitimate, for the protection of peace officers, confidential informants, and those in protective custody, it is important we allow individual communities to judiciously restrict these recordings in accordance with thier needs.

Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: To start off, I'd like to address Pro's first attack on my "positions. " Pro essentially states that police officers are to be scrutinized for every action that they commit by the regular citizen, due in part to the deference they're paid because of their authority, and because that it is a way to keep such police officers accountable. While this sounds good in theory, in practice it leaves much to be desired, because the entire idea that Pro has built her argument on this point, and indeed the entire debate, around, accountability, seems to be a one-way street. The problem with this form of "accountability" coming from Joe Citizen is that there is no ability to make them accountable in reverse. Indeed, with today's technology, there is little to no available means except outright illegality to control the use of these devices for recording purposes during police interactions. Why is this important? Because with Joe Citizen's ability to record any time, any where, police are going to be subject to that person's biases, positive or negative, and the fact that such personal media can be transmitted to people everywhere, including to criminal sources which will use such information to their advantage. This is not a random theory, either - criminals are using the internet in increasing ways to get around the police[1]. Given the fact that police officers will have no effective ability to keep those with personal recording devices from committing such acts except to stop them on-the-spot, it seems highly questionable to allow Joe Citizen to keep police officers accountable - something I support - when there is no way to keep them accountable if they themselves break the law and jeopardize officer's safety and ability to keep the peace. The second point that Pro contests is the question of whether or not police officers would be hampered by the knowledge that they were being recorded; Pro, obviously, answers that it is an irrelevant question, as officers in such a situation should not have to act outside of their own respective boundaries, and if they do, should be able to justify such actions whether or not they're recorded. A fair, if misguided answer to this important point; the question, however, is not whether the officers can explain themselves in these situations - no doubt they can if their actions are justified - but whether the officers will feel safe to do them at all. Indeed, and my opponent must agree, something that hampers an officer's ability to make quick decisions on their feet is something that should be looked at with a very skeptical eye as to whether or not it should even be there! Fear is a highly motivating factor in every decision a person makes, and officers do not have the security of knowing whether or not their actions will get accolades or boos. Adding another pressure to the situation, with cameras rolling, is not necessarily a good idea in an uncontrolled environment. The third point my opponent notes is that she doesn't know the many regulations and restrictions that govern actions that police officers take out on a beat, during operations, and even during their off-duty periods[2]. The majority of officers follow these rules, and the violators out there that don't should be dealt with, I agree. However, how lacking knowledge on police regulations, and pointing out that bad people exist is an argument, I have no idea. The fourth point my opponent addresses is one dear to my heart - citizen journalism. My opponent has wildly misrepresented my position on this, though not necessarily by her own fault - clarity is something that should always come with a statement like the one I made. My entire point of mentioning the citizen journalism aspect of this was the fact that it can be quite easily distorted for uses beyond those of Pro's noble crusade for accountability. I need not explain the fact that America's national media is already biased beyond all belief, especially to a Canadian used to relatively unbiased public broadcasting. Those biases are in fact bred and fed by the opinions of everyday people, and people seek to exploit this. Notably, people like Andrew Breitbart, or those guys who tapped a sitting Senator's phone lines[3], who try and build a career out of it. The point is this: citizen journalism is fine, and I support it, as clearly does my opponent. But citizen journalism has its positives, and its clear negatives - one of them being that information can be easily distorted to not only change contexts and situations, but often maliciously so, for whatever reason. Police officers, who are to remain impartial and trusted among their respective communities as keepers of the peace, are undermined by the actions of quite a few people who hold the view that officers, no matter their intentions, no matter their standing, and no matter their actions, are basically the scourge of the Earth. Officers, who by a large majority follow the rules and regulations of their profession, do not need such people having the ability to do so, without accountability or measure. My opponent's main argument and conclusion is simply as follows: because police officers have authority, and can abuse this authority, citizens should have means of holding to account police officers. Personal recording devices give citizens the means, and should therefore be legally allowed to record during police interactions. And you know what - I agree with her, or at least her sentiment that police officers must be held accountable. That is an obvious no-brainer, and one that is hard to argue against. But the caveat that recording technology is an acceptable means of achieving those ends is, simply put, wrong. My opponent cites cases, and how in the aftermath the evidence that was provided, photographic evidence of bruises, was not sufficient, and how if a recording device were present, and the user could record without any fear of punishment, the evidence would have been sufficient to win the case. However, not only does my opponent not know whether or not it would have made a difference, indeed it's an almost irrelevant point to bring up, as recording devices were not present anyways. Even in a hypothetical situation where devices could have been present, and recording was fully legal, would those recording still not fear some reprisal? If the police officer's authority and discretion is so great, would it really make a difference whether it was legal or not? Indeed, when you get right down to it, the question isn't whether or not recording the will make a difference, but whether or not the police should have that kind of authority at all. Do not confuse my position with that of someone who is against First Amendment rights, as stipulated in your Constitution - I fully support your ability to think, do, and say what you please. But like any civil right, it is dependent upon your ability to do so without harmful consequences to other individuals and the public at-large. The ability to record police interactions, whether or not it is in a justified situation with clear-cut abuse, is not necessarily a neutral action; while you may be able to punish abusers, you will also punish those who do not. While you may hold police accountable, the police may not be able to hold those with malicious purposes accountable. And while you may think you're doing the community a service, you may in fact be undermining law enforcement's ability to connect and protect the community they're in. Thank you to Lwerd, and I hope to continue this debate further, as I have much more to say! Sources: 1. . http://bit.ly... 2. . http://bit.ly... 3. . http://bit.ly...

Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras place security over civil liberties.

Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: You're wrong, my argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered. You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement. By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie. Also, I don't agree with you on cost at all. It's worth preventing false witness statements, wrongful jailing, and it helps the investigation tremendously because again, you cannot argue with the facts! My opponent verges on strawmanning. I urge you to vote in affirmation of this statement.

Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: Thanks, Volkov. To begin this debate, I'd like to start by first examining the negative position before segueing into my own. In a recent forum, my opponent has cited 4 reasons for his advocacy in not allowing interaction with police officers to be recorded: 1) Cops will be unnecessarily scrutinized 2) Cops need to react to a situation quickly 3) Cops already have a lot of restrictions 4) Everyone need not be a journalist These are the statements Con should be held accountable for defending [1]. Indeed Con is not the only one to hold this position; many officials have defended laws that prohibit recording cops noting similar reasons of precaution and safety. However the laws prohibiting audio recording are actually eavesdropping and wiretap laws that were designed to protect private conversations. So the question becomes: what is private and what is not? This distinction further becomes unclear when you consider the fact that the government can legally record citizens (so why not the other way around?). Let's look at Con's first point. He notes that the problem of recording is that cops will then be judged for their actions, no matter how justified. Of course I see no problem with this and in fact regard it as a good thing. If a situation arises and a cop reacts in accordance to his or her training, then his action is *justified* and he has no reason to fear this law. Now, Con's response will presumably be that the government uses the same excuse (that only wrong-doers need worry) when justifying the privacy invasion of citizens through cameras and other means. I negate. I contend that the comparison is far from analogous considering the role and authority that police offers have in society compared to regular citizens. For instance, if I walked up to a stranger and asked to see his ID, they would probably look at me and tell me to bugger off. However if a PO made the same request, one would typically surrender their ID and follow any other instructions given. Further, if I were to randomly attack someone in the street, people may attempt to jump in or call the police to rectify the situation. However in an instance where a PO was seen in the same circumstance, people's reaction would be a lot different. My point here is this: If you're going to give someone as much power and authority as POs have, then there should be a lot of checks on that power to ensure no rampant abuse - as history shows us that power tends to manifest "power trips" among those with authority [2]. Con's second point was that cops must always be on their toes, and not have to second-guess their actions in life or death situations. However, it logically follows that if one's life was in fact threatened, that reacting accordingly would not warrant any unjust attention or punishment. Due to the risk involved in a profession such as law enforcement, it's reasonable to consider the threats one endures and assess whether or not their reaction was appropriate. Next, Con points out that cops "already have to worry about restrictions." To me this seems a bit comical. Cops are given far more leeway in their authority than almost any other profession (aside from the military or other government agencies). These 'restrictions' are completely unclear to me. In 2006, numerous cops in plain clothes approached Sean Bell and friends in a car, and shot the three of them over 50 times in a matter of seconds [3]. The officers were found not guilty of any crime. In 1999, completely unarmed Amadou Diallo was shot 41 times by more cops in plain clothes [4]. Again, all officers were found not guilty of any crime. So far history shows us that police can do the most heinous and unjustified things (not necessarily these 2 examples, but in general) and get away with it [2]. So, Con will have to expand on this point and explain to me the "restrictions" cops apparently have to worry about, considering they are typically not held accountable for their crimes. Finally, Con asks why "everyone has to be a journalist" and report things like this "whether they're justified or not." I'll be frank -- to me this is an absurd question, but one that segues perfectly into the affirmative aspect of this debate. Citizens should be empowered to impose limits on the State by holding them accountable and subject to the same standards of civilians. There are far too many circumstances in which police completely abuse their power and authority! Thanks to recording technology, we have been able to catch a significant number of police acting completely outside their realm of authority to abuse their power and subject citizens to unjust treatment. One site depicts a cop arresting a Burger King employee because he THINKS she gave him the wrong change. The site also shows a cop threatening to ruin this kids life *by making up charges* after pulling this kid over for parking a suspicious vehicle in a commuter lot. You can also watch a cop knee a 70 year old lady in the forehead [5]. Stories of police brutality or other wrongful prejudice and attacks are NOT few and far between. In fact, a quick Google search or perusal of YouTube details millions of cases. I think almost everyone can recount a bad experience with a police officer. The bottom line is this: Because cops have so much power and influence in the legal community, ensuring that they're acting in accordance with the power bestowed upon them is paramount to upholding justice. I previously mentioned a cop threatening to make up false accusations that could literally ruin a young person's life. This is criminal and officers like this need to be caught and punished. The only way to gain proof of these acts is to record it. A "he said, she said" situation with a cop usually ALWAYS winds up in the cop's favor, making tangible evidence not only an asset but a requirement if you expect results. Additionally, I noted earlier that these laws were originally derived to protect private conversations. However, if a cop is talking to me, is this a "private conversation?" It seems logical that because I am a part of the conversation, that it does not exclude me from said conversation or the rights to said conversation - including recording it. However one Chicago man was arrested and released on 20,000$ bond simply for recording his own arrest [6]. He is being put on trial for an offense which carries with it a 4-15 year jail time penalty. This makes the eavesdropping law completely baseless considering it's not "eavesdropping" if one is being directly addressed! Now, considering all of the power an officer has in not only using discretion to determine if an arrest is necessary or not (consider, for example, the Burger King case I mentioned) but the fact that cops can and do assault people in the process of these arrests signifies that recording should be an option when you factor in how many times the events that took place either directly prior to or during the arrest have an impact in the ultimate court case that ensue. When my ex was bludgeoned by officers, the plethora of pictures of her black-and-blued body taken directly after the incident were not enough to incriminate the cops because there was no proof that the bruises were from them. Had evidence been allowed to be submitted (without fear of further punishment), she could have proven her case and had the officers appropriately disciplined. However without permissible evidence, there is no way to get these cops punished. Cops' word always have greater weight. I'm out of characters for now, but I greatly look forward to further proving my case in the upcoming rounds. Back to you, Volkov! [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...

Title: Crime cameras Content: Too few crime cameras are working to fight/deter crime

Title: Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy. Content: Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy because they keep us safer. They survey public areas for illegal behaviour and often can be reviewed to identify criminals and other security threats. A lot of times, security footage is what incriminates suspects. Many people say that it is an invasion of our privacy to be spied on like this, but I think that if we don't do anything wrong we shouldn't have to worry about being seen by law enforcement. What do you think?

Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: My opponent brings up the very valid concern of privacy. However, the issue may not be a prevalent as it appears. Firstly, my opponent seems to b concerned with the general public gaining access to body camera footage. He specifically mentioned the Freedom of Information Act. The FIOA has many exceptions; the general public is not entitled to all government records: "Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that: 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual" The government has already considered the privacy of the general public. Simply put, I can't file an FIOA request to receive footage of DUI arrests for an arbitrary reason. If, for instance, I was a lawyer taking a case against an alleged malpracticing police officer, I could easily receive footage. http://www.foia.gov... In terms of informants and traumatized victims, they would not have to worry about this information becoming public for the reasons mentioned above. The police should be instructed to inform the public of the exemptions of the FOIA. In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information. At the end of the day, this is a problem not with body cameras but a with policy. In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion. Your specific example displays a poor use of discretion. The old women has an illegal firearm, when she could have easily registered it. She could have an insidious motive for having motive for having an unregistered firearm. Should that weapon be used in a crime, it will be difficult if not impossible to trace. With the presence of a body camera, his supervisor could inform the officer of his mistake and make a positive change.

Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: Thanks, Volkov. 1. Re: With Joe Citizen's ability to record any time, police are going to be subject to biases. I've explained that police being subject to scrutiny is a good thing. As detailed in the last round, police have a tough gig and mistakes will be made; that's the nature of the job. However, because of their rampant authority, being allowed to record their interaction with others can help establish the guilt or innocence of people who may be wrongly abused, arrested or incriminated by law enforcement. Without this protection, our rights are greatly inhibited considering in a court of law their word vs. an ordinary citizen's without evidence is almost *always* upheld; Con did not argue contrary. Without being able to submit tangible evidence, a dirty agent could continue abusing their power and manipulating the system, which can have detrimental effects on the community and an individual's life. As such, this protection far outweighs any negative of people merely scrutinizing the police. Just as some families have chosen to install "Nanny Cams" to ensure their child is protected while they're away, people have a right to protect themselves from tyrannical law. Similarly, business owners can install cameras to minimize theft and robbery and protect their property; why can't people do the same to protect theirs (person)? 2. Re: Criminals are using the internet in increasing ways to get around the police If you check out Con's source, it details organized crime personnel in Italy using Skype as a way to avoid being wiretapped. This, of course, has nothing to do with the resolution. Their use of Skype would continue whether or not police were legally able to be recorded. Here, the only evidence Con could possibly present in his favor includes proof that recording POs has had severely detrimental results, or led to criminals tampering with police investigations. Con has not presented evidence of this nature, so we have no reason to assume that recording interaction with a cop would in any way negatively effect police business. Criminals are using technology to get around the police? Sure, it's been happening for ages. What has that got to do with anything? How would recording an officer arrest you, arrest another, or interact with someone in general aid in criminal activity? At best you could argue a direct transmission of data to a criminal, but again that's unlikely and seemingly unuseful. I expect Con to explain how this is possible or likely instead of committing the base rate fallacy (using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability). Again, if I am pulled over, and I record the cop talking to me, asking for my license and registration, etc., how is that harming anything or anyone? Even in a more hostile situation, I don't see how it's relevant. 3. Re: There is no way to keep citizens accountable if they break the law, or jeopardize an officer's safety and ability to keep the peace. It's definitely possible to punish a citizen who abuses this right. If someone is using Skype for criminal activity like in Con's example, then of course they should be punished. Similarly, if someone is using recording police for criminal activity, they should be punished too. However saying because people *might* do this that it's a reason to keep this illegal is absurd. That's like saying alcohol should be illegal because people *might* drink and drive. We've long disposed of that backwards and futile ideology; we know it's better to entrust people with restrictions, and this is one of those cases. Also, this negates Con's own contention. He says it's not fair to record cops because they MIGHT be bad, and then says we shouldn't be able to record because CITIZENS *might* be bad. Not only is this hypocritical, but I've explained how cops being abusive is far more dangerous and likely. 4. Re: POs may not feel safe to act a particular way, which could endanger their lives. Should an officer have "felt safe" to open fire on an unarmed man? I advocate that cops feel TOO SAFE to engage in any behavior they please without fear of reprimand. As an example, feverish teasingly told Nags that he would report his father (a cop) to the bureau for tampering with police evidence (a joke). However, Nags responded with something along the lines of, "What good would that do - reporting my dad to his friends?" POs should take the liberty to act in accordance with the training they've been given. If someone opens fire on them, they should fire in return. However I doubt any police have been trained to start shooting first, meaning there's no basis to do so. If their shooting (or other actions) was *truly justified,* then they would not be punished (for instance, the cops were found innocent in Sean Bell's case because the jury did not believe the cops were being intentionally harmful). Con writes, "Adding another pressure to the situation, with cameras rolling, is not necessarily a good idea in an uncontrolled environment." Again I negate -- police should feel comfortable knowing that if they do make a mistake, recordings of the going-ons can work in their favor to justify their actions. For instance, if they say they shot someone because they thought he was reaching for a gun, and the video shows the suspect reaching for their wallet, this would indeed be a tragedy but one in which police could be forgiven and understood. However in cases like the examples I've given last round, sometimes police act brutally for completely unjustifiable reasons. These people need to be caught and punished to maintain the integrity of the law. 5. In the last round, I asked Con to explain the "many regulations" officers suffer from, as he implied, considering I noted how they usually get away with murder (literally). He pointed out that many officers follow rules, but did not expand any further on this point. 5. On the topic of citizen journalism, Con says that it can be dangerous because of the blatant bias that comes with it. I agree. However, simply recording a police officer does NOT impose any bias. In that case, the actions of the officer and his counterpart speak for themselves. Watching a police officer threaten someone is not bias against the police; it's a representation of the cop's actions. Any distortion to video could easily be noted or proven. 6. Con continues to say that many officers are unjustifiably stigmatized because of the actions of a few, and I agree. However, recording police can be used to prove Con right - that most cops are law abiding and fair. 7. My opponent says that he agrees law enforcement should be held accountable given their authority. However, he writes "recording technology is [not] an acceptable means of achieving those ends." In that case, I invite my opponent to explain why, and more importantly, what a better way of achieving those ends would be considering I've detailed precisely why this is the best and most fair way of ensuring integrity. 8. Con writes, "If the PO's authority and discretion is so great, would it really make a difference whether [recording] was legal or not?" Absolutely. If a cop acted wrongly, he'd be held accountable by co-workers and superiors, who would in turn be held accountable by their co-workers and superiors, as well as the public. If Officer Joe was recorded beating an old lady for no reason, and that was posted on YouTube, there would be a public demand for punishment, and this would be an incentive to minimize police abuse. 9. Con concludes by saying that this act could effectively hurt innocent parties. I contend that no sufficient evidence to draw this conclusion has been established, and that this would be a minimal risk. On balance, being allowed to record police would have the most benefits in terms of protecting society and our rights and safety.

Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras help deter crime

Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras help restore a public sense of safety

Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: I do not believe people should be entitled to privacy in public locations. A camera is essentially a silent police officer: would you walk up to a police officer and ask him to stop watching you walking down the street? It would be very suspicious to make that request. Freedom: "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants" [1] Being watched does not harm your freedom. You can still act how you want to act. The only place where cameras will not be is in private property, but the beauty of having cameras everywhere else is that you can see who is going in and out of a house. If someone was murdered inside a house, you can watch who leaves the house and then follow their movements to find out where they go. Most crimes will be solved by observing their travels. If the power goes out, we are back where we started: no CCTV. This isn't a problem because it is no different from the situation we have right now. [1] - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Title: The philippines should continue the "Kill on sight if armed" law against criminals. Content: Police abusing power by planting a weapon is simple enough that if you are hearing about it much at all it is probably happening pretty often without being detected. Though in this case a camera would be a good idea, it would also be quite costly. Considering you said -which is not all that surprising seeing how poor our economy is-, this might simply not be a feasible solution for your country. Of course situations do and will happen that could put police at risk, and a solution for that is not so easy. If the economy improves, body cameras would be a good idea. A temporary solution I could see working is, instead of outright allowing officers to kill on sight, if they or someone else provides a video of the advent which shows the officer is at risk and kills they would be pardoned on the spot. Also, in the advent that deadly force need not be necessary, for instance a suspect running at the officer with a knife, carrying a strong police grade pepper spray may be a better choice. Now none of this would solve all your countries problems overnight, but could still be a good start. I have my own strong opinions on how drugs should be handled so I will give my ideas for that. First of all, drug addicts should not be punished. Drug addiction is a mental illness that is very hard for someone to kick, I have watched my own sister fight drug addiction and seen firsthand how hard it is. Often the very act of starting isn't a direct choice for addicts at all, but rather started due to other mental illnesses. My sister started drugs while bipolar, severely depressed and suicidal, with severe ADHD. Not to say at all nothing should be done, but that is the wrong target. Drug addicts should have mandatory treatment if caught with drugs, and that is a much more lasting solution. The real target should be the drug dealers, and they should get a punishment fitting of someone who lives off of ruining people’s lives. For each proven sale they should be charged with assault, and any proven overdoses murder. For lasting change more than just hard drugs should be targeted, but also tobacco and alcohol, as for most addicts that is what they start with.

Title: Speed cameras produce additional benefits as improving technology allows them to be used for other p... Content: Speed cameras are a bad idea in their own right, but they present a wider assault on liberty if they can be used for other purposes. Allowing the government to track citizens' every move is a dangerous infringement on the right to privacy. Nor should we be confident in the technology, as recognition systems are very inaccurate and this will lead to may innocent citizens being harassed by the authorities.

Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras are an intrusion on individual privacy rights

Title: Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing... Content: Removing police officers from traffic duty is bad, as skilled officers are much more able to detect and deal with dangerous driving than insensitive cameras, which will miss any driving offences committed below the speed limit. Cameras create an incentive for police forces to catch motorists out in order to profit from fines. This turns the police into petty bureaucrats milking the public rather than serving them, and creates bad feeling towards the police that is likely to produce problems in tackling real crimes.

Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: Thank you for your quick response, Lwerd. 1. My opponent seems to have missed the point presented; while I make no claims to the contrary that there exists police abuse out there, my point is that giving Joe Citizen a camera may not lead to the proper use of such video as my opponent describes, in a court of law to catch these abusers. Much like the "nanny cam" example my opponent gave, unless a crime is actually committed, what purpose is there to it? Given that nanny cams have also been used to violate privacy in voyeur cases, there clearly is many alternative uses for nanny cames that may not quite fall under my opponent's consent. This is the same issue that comes with recording interactions with the police; what is actually right, and what is blatantly a violation of privacy and protection? 2. My source, if Pro had followed along as intended, was to demonstate the fact that the internet has given criminal networks a completely new tool to affect police operations - nothing more, nothing less. Moving on, the entire idea has been this: the internet, modern mass media, and other things allows people with a certain bias to do what they will with whatever they have, regardless of the consequences it can create. My point has been that police - also people too - are going to be subjected to unnecessary stress caused by videos that scrutinize actions, or just plainly misrepresent the facts, not to mention the privacy concerns, recognized already by courts, for which much of the current laws in place are based on[1]. 3. My opponent forgets that, going with her example, in order to stop many drinking and driving cases, there has been a major campaign, supported by police, to stop inebriated drivers from even getting into a car - stopping the problem before it becomes one, because how do we know they won't kill someone? The same is true with recording the police; without the benefit of hindsight, we don't know what their actions will lead to. My opponent wants to punish those that breach this right; so, like drunk driving, is it not better to stop it before it even happens? I'm not talking about illegalizing recording devices, here, any more than I'd advocate illegalizing alcohol - just that we need to stop a problem, like drunk driving, from occuring before it even happens. 4. Aside from the amusing noting of using Nags as a source, my opponent misses the point. She says police should feel comfortable - they don't. Several officers have testified to this fact[2]. In a study done by a British organization, interviewing police officers who were being recorded by Britain's extensive CCTV system (their own recording system, nonetheless!), the report found "... When asked whether the introduction of surveillance cameras had affected their work, themajority of police officers interviewed initially responded by stating that the presence of CCTV had not had any impact on the way in which they carried out their duties or exercised their powers.... When pressed on the issue of how CCTV had affected their behaviour on the streets, however, over two-thirds of the officers interviewed conceded that the introduction of cameras had forced them to be ‘more careful' when out on patrol. 10 Some, for example, had heard stories of officers being prosecuted for unlawful arrest or assault on the basis of CCTV evidence, stories that had left them anxious about being watched and the possibility of their own activities being scrutinised. Others, particularly younger officers, found being under constant surveillance made them nervous and uncomfortable." The very same report also has officers praising this, and also has officers saying that they're afraid of actions being "misrepresented," apparently a very common concern among officers. Clearly, an issue exists, even if my opponent says it shouldn't. 5(a). My opponent didn't look through my source, then. 5(b). This issue was addressed above; recording, like drinking, may not lead to misrepresentative video or drunk driving, but without benefit of hindsight, we don't know - hence why preventative measures should be in place. 6. Again, above. 7. My opponent should note that I said that with exceptions; recording technology, and the ability to record officers willy-nilly for whatever reason, is not an effective way of keeping police accountable. It can, no doubt about that - and those incidents should be protected under law. But, related to the next point, even if recording has been made illegal, the video survives, as it must still be used in court as evidence of any crime being committed; for those officers truly worried about their actions and being charged, it doesn't matter if it is illegal or not, as they will try to stop it anyways. 8. My opponent missed the point; the issue is whether or not officers who are truly bent on doing harm would tolerate video recording anyways, whether it was legal or not. The common sense answer is a plain no; if an officer wants to make good on any threat, he will, and would most likely dispose of any video recording, or audio, or whatever, anyways. Under the current laws in place, the recording survives still as evidence of a crime being committed - meaning that, officers doing wrong or right being recorded must maintain the integrity of that recording in order for any charge to come up. Officers wanting to do harm, do not. 9. In conclusion, again, my opponent has not refuted my positions effectively. Recording the police in abusive situations is fantastic - but if its not happening, why should Joe Citizen be able to unnerve officers, misrepresent facts, and have free will to violate officers privacy? It makes little sense, and I urge a vote for CON. Thank you, and good luck in the last round, L. Sources: 1. http://www.citmedialaw.org... 2. http://www.surveillance-and-society.org...

Title: A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Content: In all those situations a person recording the present situation would have no detrimental affect on the officers except for the press giving a live feed. In that particular situation I could understand restricting their reasoning to restrict the live coverage but I still don't agree with it one hundred percent. The raid you speak of has been the center of much heated debate because of the excessive force being used when a only a de criminalized amount of marijuana was found. The problem with law enforcement being the only ones allowed to record such encounters is that it leaves room for further corruption. For example: The officer recording a raid could be simply looking the other direction when another officer is planting drugs. One side being entrusted with the responsibility of recording such encounters leaves room for corruption. Both the civilian and law enforcement sides should bear the responsibility. It is each sides right to have the means necessary to defend themselves such as in a court of law the defense and prosecution are both represented by attorneys. Law enforcement is here to protect and serve the people so it should be the needs of the people that come first. The people are the ones that need the extra protection for obvious reasons.

Title: A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Content: While there do need to be unambiguous protections for citizens exercising the first amendment freedom(press) to record and report police wrongdoing(as well as exceptional conduct), a one size fits all approach to this could compromise police departments' ability to conduct operations. For example, the right to use zoom lenses on police could be critical in rural environments where the police may be executing a warrant hundreds of meters from the closest neighbor. However, this same protection could put the operational security of urban police forces at risk to Organized Crime conducting 'counter-intelligence' by spying through a window into barracks or field command posts. Also, during a hostage incident, even the established press must sometimes be gagged in order to prevent the insurgents from monitoring police activity on the news. Speaking to the efficacy of mandating police record themselves(thoroughly), in 2010 a SWAT officer recorded a raid in Columbia, MO that lead to a controversy surround the shooting of a family dog, over a de-criminalized quantity of marijuana. This video started to open our eyes to the vast over-militarization of our police force, and more a comprehensive protocol requiring this be the standard procedure would be much more rational than a national law allowing anyone to record police, even if they have clear, yet unprovable, malicious intent. Police need to be granted some discretion to judge between the citizen press and a thug taking a record of the officers who may be arresting his friend, for the purposes of retribution.

Title: CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified Content: As a Brit, I'm always fascinated by the differences in cultural / political norms between America and Britain. One such difference, which is the focus of this debate, is that of CCTV cameras. Practical difficulties aside, they are by and large accepted by the British public as a given - clearly something worthwhile, if only they'd be used effectively - whereas the American public seems, as far as I can see, much more wary of the whole issue. That's why this debate is set up: I will argue that there is a moral case for CCTV cameras in public places, and that the moral arguments against CCTV are flawed; and my opponent, naturally, will argue the contrary. We will both have the burden of proof in these regards. I define "public places" as places where the general public are allowed access without any legal barriers. The most obvious example of this would be outdoors, on public-access streets and highways, but this would also apply to such places as state-funded schools, libraries and museums. Essentially, this is the state deciding to place CCTV cameras on its own property, in an attempt to have visual evidence of criminal activity and catch criminals accordingly. Hopefully this definition is clear and uncontroversial. I ask that prospective opponents seek any necessary clarifications in the comments section, rather than unnecessarily derail this debate on semantics. Note that I draw a general distinction between any practical arguments for/against CCTV (e.g. whether it deters crime, whether it, as currently constituted, catches criminals etc.) and any moral arguments for/against CCTV. My opponent will obviously be within his/her rights to argue that, in certain circumstances, this distinction is a false one...and dependent on the circumstances I may or may not concede the point...but I wanted to make the general distinction clear, just to avoid this debate being taken up on a false understanding of what will be argued. I ask that this first round be used only to accept this debate, and to define any suitable terms / make any definitional challenges as my opponent may deem necessary. A three-round debate would then proceed as per usual.

Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime-ridden communities have right to demand and install cameras

Title: administrative efficiency; ensuring justice Content: This argument of course presupposes that we believe the Jean Charles Menezes case was investigated thoroughly. We have known for years that we have a corrupt police force. Stephen Lawrence highlighted the institutional racism which is inherent in our police force and the Menezes case has only served to show society that the police force is nothing more than a band of brothers who protect each others interests. With such a police force, CCTV footage can be tampered with or simply 'lost' in the administrative system. Thus, CCTV footage is merely a helpful tool for the police force, not to society as a whole.

Title: Council misusing their power Content: Local councils are not using their powers of surveillance to stop the crimes which you or I would consider important. Instead, such instruments are being used as a profit making excuse. Local councils are using the cameras to catch people who do not clean up dog foul and fly tip. To discover whether rights are harmed a balancing exercise needs to take place. The minimal criminal protection which local governments are using the CCTV for is not enough to override our freedom of privacy. This freedom is being threatened for local government's financial benefit, clearly this is not a fair exchange.

Title: Traffic light cameras Content: I see what you are saying as far as the safety goes, but I still see it as a way for the government to make money. I feel that instead of having a camera watch us, we should have traffic police or Suffolk police watching the intersections just the way they used to. I find it to be annoying to have to now think about whether a camera is going to snap a picture at you, obeying the law, but being under a yellow light through an intersection. While it might make some people more cautious, safer drivers, I think that too many people are retarding traffic because they are fearful of getting a ticket. I feel that the money that they are spending to put all of the traffic lights in is almost a waste of time. By the time the government hires people to put them in, pays for the camera and the electric to run the thousands of cameras, hires people to monitor and scan through all of the pictures, and sends out tickets, it is barely worth it to even have. I think that the cameras have become a hazard to the everyday drivers and the government is taking advantage of our privacy, in a way. What next? We have cameras at every corner now, who's to say they won't start bugging our hotel rooms like NK!!

Title: Crime cameras Content: Surveillance cameras do not deter crime

Title: CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified Content: My opponent's argument is: "CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified." I asked my opponent to specify what mode of morality he and I would be using as a parameter for the debate. He then wrote that we would not be using parameters regarding morality. I then wrote that based on my own morality, CCTV cameras in public places are NOT morally justified. Therefore, CCTV cameras in public places are not morally justified. This is true based on the parameters that MY OPPONENT set up. My opponent needs to understand that you must set up some parameters for your debate. I rest my case.

Title: Crime cameras help reduce frequency of community patrols. Content: Police typically patrol neighborhoods with a certain frequency. It is possible for police to reduce the frequency of their patrolling in neighborhoods with crime cameras. This is due largely to the fact that crime cameras help deter and reduce crime, reducing the demand for police patrolling in a certain neighborhood. In addition, newer crime cameras can help detect criminal activity and alert officers to attend to suspicious activities. This is why cameras are often viewed as "extra crime-fighting eyes". By helping reduce the need to patrol certain areas, crime cameras can help reduce the costs required to support such police patrolling.

Title: The government should not bow to public pressure Content: There are, as this debate has shown, many perfectly logical reasons for abolishing speed cameras that have nothing to do with avoiding annoying fines. A democratic government should listen to public opinion about speed cameras, and take all the facts into account; they would find that the cameras are simply not an effective solution to the dangers of motoring.

Title: Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy Content: It is one"s right to walk around public places without worrying that a security camera is recording you. On the subject that security camera deter crime ...well, the millions or so cameras in public places has not stopped crimes. Advocates for security camera argued that criminals are less likely to commit crimes if they know that they are being watched. Well not true, criminals will move to another area where there"s no camera to commit crimes. Ordinary, law abiding citizens are being filmed every second without their consent. People should not have their every move recorded when all they want to do, is go a mall or walk the street.

Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: Thanks to Lwerd for broaching this interesting and controversial topic, and one that I'm sure will lead to a fantastic debate. I only have one thing to clarify: I've never stated that it should be completely illegal to record interactions, but that it can present a very dangerous and disruptive thing for law enforcement to handle. I take the position that restrictions are not unreasonable in order to protect both the officer's privacy and law enforcement's integrity, but that to make it completely illegal is more than a tad extreme. There are much easier ways of enforcing these restrictions while maintaining the ability for citizens to record any crimes committed by police officers and have that admitted as evidence in court or to the media. However, if need be, for this argument I will argue for full illegality. Possibly not important, but I certainly believe is, as knowing someone's motivations for arguing for a certain position. So if I seem not to be taking "farging people taking picture of the cops" to heart, you'll know why. Another thing to clarify is that I don't have a very large amount of time to devote to DDO during the afternoons this week, but hopefully we can wrap up this debate by Wednesday, when it'll matter. Anyways, I look forward to an interesting debate. Good luck!

Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras cannot deter criminals that do not fear the law

Title: Traffic light cameras Content: Sounds like a plan to me, Rich. I definitley think that there needs to be some sort of study done to determine whether the traffic cameras are actually effective or are they just a scare tactic and hazard to others. The fact that the cameras will hopefully be looked into further by the government sounds like it would work better that way to see if they are helping. I think we have come to a conclusion, making this the best, most cordial debate ever in the history of debates. Booyah.

Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: Thanks, Volkov. 1. Re: With citizen recordings, cops are subject to bias. A) Unless a crime is actually committed, what purpose is there to it? ----> Knowing that they're being recorded acts as a deterrent against police brutality. If an officer knows he's going to be held accountable for his actions, he's far more likely to abide by the law. B) Recording violates privacy ----> There is no violation if they know they're being recorded. It would be obvious to gauge from the tape if they knew they were or not. I would even go so far as to say that hidden cams should be allowed, so long as cops realize they *can possibly* be recorded at any time. However, I don't have to defend that here -- just that recording in general should be permissible. 2. Re: Criminals are using technology to get around police. ----> To re-state exactly what I said in the last round, Con has not presented any evidence that recording cops has or could tamper with police investigations or have detrimental results. How would recording an officer interact with you or another aid criminal activity? At best you could argue a direct transmission of data to a criminal, but again that's unlikely and seemingly unuseful. If I record a cop talking to me, how is that harming anyone? Even in a more hostile situation, I don't see how it's relevant. Con has ignored this whole rebuttal and just repeats that people use the internet for crime, which as I said is nothing new, unusual, or even relevant to this discussion. However Con did elaborate (repeat) that police are going to be subject to: A) Bias ----> I've said in the last round, "Simply recording a police officer does NOT impose any bias. The actions of the officer speak for themselves. Watching a PO threaten someone is not bias; it's a true representation of the cop's actions. Any distortion to video could easily be noted or proven." Instead of responding to these contentions, Con just repeats the fact that officers will be subject to bias completely ignoring my rebuttal explaining contrary. B) Stress caused by videos that misrepresent facts ----> Once again, there's no reason for police to be stressed about possibly being recorded -- especially if the law becomes such that they must know they're being recorded. I've explained how it's easy to prove whether or not a cop was aware of this. Why should they be stressed if they follow protocol, and the tape can verify them acting as such? I've explained that this could be HELPFUL to the cops. Moreover, I've explained in my last point how facts will not be misrepresented and in fact confirmed. C) Privacy concerns ----> I've already explained how this is BS. I notice Con never answered my question about how recording my conversation with a cop violates his right to privacy when in fact he is addressing me... hmm. Also, why is the cops's privacy paramount vs. our right to protect ourself against a monopoly (tyranny) of law enforcement which always favors another officer's word? 3. Re: There is no way to keep citizens accountable if they compromise the law or officer's safety. ----> Once again, I've explained how recording POs will probably not be harmful in any way! Remember that Con never gave us one example of how this could be a bad thing. His only contention, being subject to bias, has been negated and explained how in fact recording can eliminate any hostility toward cops in a questionable situation (unless, of course, they're actually guilty in which case recording would be a good thing!). If not, recording can validate a cop's story. In short though, Con's point about not being able to punish citizens has been negated, and that's probably why he changed the topic. 4. Re: POs may not feel safe to act a particular way, which could endanger their lives. ----> Con's source proves my point exactly. He quotes, "Over 2/3 of the officers interviewed conceded that the introduction of cameras had forced them to be ‘more careful' when out on patrol." Great! That's exactly what I want! More careful does not equivocate to less safe or more timid. Again, if they accidentally shoot an unarmed man because they thought he was reaching for a gun while he was really reaching for his wallet, nobody's saying being recorded should stop them from acting on their instincts -- in fact, it would validate their reaction. If they believe they're prone to so many mistakes to the point where this would be a problem, then perhaps law enforcement is not for them (and their authority would not benefit society). If "being more careful" translates to being more appropriate, I'm all for it. Con's quote continues to note that some officers were scared because they heard other cops were being prosecuted for unlawful arrest. I think this is perfect! Police should NOT be arresting people unlawfully! This once again validates the point that cops would think twice before acting against society and abusing their power. Also, n00b cops being anxious about this proves absolutely nothing considering n00b cops are going to be anxious no matter what, just as we all are with new jobs and especially when we're being recorded regardless of what that job is. Cops saying things will be "misrepresented" is completely false as I've explained. Further, cops being against this is totally irrelevant considering ANYONE would vote against being recorded at a new job. 5A. ----> Con's source is comical. It's titled "police regulations" but details more about what being a cop entails (i.e. how to be promoted, maternity pay, issues of retirement, etc.) rather than what cops stress out over from the job. In short, being expected to follow the rules is not a negative added stress. It should be of utmost importance and concern and at the forefront of their conscious while working. 5B. ----> Extend my argument of no possible bias. 6. ----> Extend my point that recording can be used to prove that most cops are law abiding and fair. 7A. ----> First, Con admits that recording can protect people against cop abuse and notes "those incidents should be protected under law." However, if recording is all-together illegal, how can this be protected under law? This is seemingly contradictory. 7B. ----> Con says if recording is illegal, but video survives, "it must still be used in court as evidence of any crime being committed." I'm not sure what he is talking about here; if recording is illegal than this would be considered inadmissible evidence in any court, meaning proof of police brutality via video is 100% irrelevant to the case. In any case, I asked Con to explain what a better way of achieving those ends (catching police) would be considering I've detailed precisely why this is the best and most fair way of ensuring integrity. Con never responded to this question and can't in the last round. 8. ----> Con says a dirty cop would simply dispose of recorded evidence. First, he may not know he was being recorded. Second, this is unlikely considering it'd probably be easy to prove and he'd get in even more trouble. 9. ----> In conclusion, I pointed out that there was no sufficient evidence to assume innocent people would be hurt from this, and that indeed it's a minimal risk. Con simply repeats that if the cop is not acting wrongfully, there's no reason for recording him (which ignores my arguments regarding deterrence, protection and citizen's rights). He also restates that facts can be misrepresented (negated) and cops' privacy violated (also negated). If cops are given so much power, we have the right to protect ourself from tyranny of that power - especially if there is no evidence that recording is overtly harmful or unnecessarily hinders cops in any way. On balance, legalized recording provides us the best safety and protection of society's rights while emphasizing more trust and integrity regarding law enforcement and their relationship with society. Thank you.

Title: Crime cameras Content: Cameras speed up responses to crime and injuries.

Title: Absolutely! Content: I agree vehemently. The police need to be armed; they are frequently placed in positions in which they need to defend either themselves or somebody else. If they are shot at, they need to be capable of defending themselves and/or those around them. While Tazers ought to encouraged, police ought not be limited to having them as the sole article in their arsenal.

Title: Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy. Content: Security Cameras stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals.

Title: Crime cameras lead to slippery slope of Big Brother surveillance. Content: Crime cameras are only the beginning of a host of violations of civil liberties on the part of government. While the objectives of surveillance may be modest in the beginning, they are likely to include in the future certain video ID schemes that track every individual's movements and actions at all times in search of suspicious or subversive behavior. The risks are real of crime cameras leading to the police state scenarios depicted in George Orwell's 1984.

Title: arm the police Content: Policing is a dangerous job. Police officers should be allowed to arm themselves

Title: Police officers should be more friendly Content: I'd rather reduce incidents of use of force with body cams rather than putting Leos and the public in danger. cams have been shown to reduce use of force 50%. http://www.policefoundation.org... The problems with brutality is perception. The media sensationalizes things. The public is unfamiliar with the use of force continuum , but mostly it's a public relations problem. Broken windows policing is used in most big cites and some small, causes a lot of blowback when not done hand in hand with the modern theories on "community policing". Mistrust in cops would dramatically decline, if community policing was more than just lip service. http://www.lesc.net... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... More trust means less resistance and Leo's not having to escalate the use of force continuum The study from 92 is valid because human psychology is the same as then.

Title: Privacy is a Fundamental Right Content: I accept the amended resolution as mentioned in comments.I will argue that privacy is not a fundamental right and therefore road monitoring is within the legitimate business of government.I reject usage of the term 'unauthorised monitoring' as it is uneccessarily prejudicial. Such monitoring may have been sanctioned by the elected representatives of the people without the people being aware of its existence and can thus be authorised by the legitimate government (if we are to assume governmental legitimacy as my opponent suggests). I would instead prefer the term 'unadvertised monitoring' as it does not suffer from this connotation.I would also like my opponent to clarify what precisely he means by surveillance of pedestrians. Does this include surveillance of the sidewalk? Paths within parks that do not border roads? Does the system have the means to identify pedestrians or does it use number plate analysis to determine the registered owner of the vehicle? Presumably facial recognition software could determine the identity of pedestrians and cyclists but it may only be done after the fact, rather than routinely.Perhaps we should take the most extreme example of using biometrics to determine an individual's identity on leaving their place of residence and keeping track of every move they make since this would be where our positions have the most obvious differences. However, I would caution the audience that I do not believe that such a thing is currently possible or that it would be cost effective. I ask that they keep in mind that I am not arguing that such monitoring is the responsibility of government (in fact I would not support such a policy), just that I would not dismiss it for reasons of violation of privacy. I may support a more conservative monitoring programme, but that would depend on its aim and extent.I ask these questions not because they are particularly important to my argument, just that they will give the audience a better idea of what it is that I am actually asserting.A monitoring programme is not to be dismissed based on the right to privacy of citizens, but there may be other reasons to dismiss such a programme.

Title: Crime camera privacy, Big Brother concerns are exaggerated Content: When new crime cameras are being considered and installed in a city, it is typical that the media, civil rights groups, and skeptical citizens exaggerate the claims regarding the implications for privacy, civil liberties, and for the role of Big Brother. Years after the successful implementation of cameras, and with no privacy incidence or abuses, these initial protests appear for what they are - exaggerations and fear mongering.

Title: Hi-tech crime cameras help predict and prevent criminal acts Content: James Slack. "Caught Before the Act". Daily Mail. November 28, 2008 - "CCTV cameras which can 'predict' if a crime is about to take place are being introduced on Britain's streets. The cameras can alert operators to suspicious behaviour, such as loitering and unusually slow walking. Anyone spotted could then have to explain their behaviour to a police officer."

Title: Crime cameras Content: Cameras make a small but valuable contribution to crime fighting.

Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras offer a dangerous false sense of security

Title: Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy. Content: All of these declarations are related to what is considered an invasion of privacy, however they don't address why security cameras ARE an invasion of our privacy. Continuing on from my last argument, if people thought that being videotaped was intruding into their personal life, going out in public would be considered an intrusion as well. Security cameras are placed in public areas like human eyes are. We look at people, people look at us. If we don't want to be seen going about our daily life by cameras, then why don't we have a problem with humans? The one thing that is different about cameras is that they don't lie and they always remember what people look like and what time it was. Cameras are much more reliable in a police investigation than witnesses, because their memories of the events aren't forgotten or altered. If the only reason why people don't like security cameras is that they remember fine details down to the second, I think that those people are very aware and private about their actions, leading the average person to suspect something is up with them, and that it would be a good idea to indeed have that person taped.

Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: Thank you, Lwerd. 1. a) As my source in Round 2 had shown, the idea that officers are more likely to "abide by the law" also comes with side effects that hamper job performance. b) My opponent indeed does have to defend that here. Officers, while public servants, have a right to privacy as much as anyone else. Now, the right to privacy and laws surrounding that are not necessarily limited to just being recorded - it's also how that recording is used. If someone records a police interaction where no abuse occurs and officers are made out to be fools, as some people are prone to try and do, and officers are not aware of this, this is a violation of privacy laws. 2. My opponent seems to have skipped over a good part of my argument, then. The point has been that videos within the possession of the average citizen have no way of being tracked and stopped if they do indeed contain harmful bias, information, or what have you, until they're on the web. This is why it's important to stop it at the soure; if we can place restrictions on the ability to misrepresent or transmit harmful information at the outset, we can save a whole lot of pain occurring on all sides. I believe this is a valid, important point, and my opponent claiming I've done nothing to back it up is ludicrous. My opponent also asks why privacy is important versus protecting citizenry from the "tyranny" of law enforcement (obvious bias is bias). To make a point clear, officers are as much the citizenry as citizens are, they're simply those charged with enforcing state laws. While there is an argument to be made over the fact that officers are a "special class" of citizens, the fact remains that their privacy, much as the privacy of myself or my opponent, is protected under various legislation and laws. Just as recording someone while committing a crime is not a violation of privacy, recording a cop during any abuse of their power shouldn't be either; but other times, what is the need? 3. I addressed this before. I've also demonstrated several times how recording officers can indeed be harmful; my opponent has never countered any way for which to indeed keep citizens accountable for any actions they may take with recordings that aren't necessarily used to stop police abuse. Indeed, she never even addressed it. 4. If my opponent had read the entirety of the source, she would see it was a mixed blessing; the introduction of CCTV indeed did make officers "more careful," but also ended up intimidating officers and keep them constantly worried about actions that could be misconstrued. It's pretty clear from the outside; officers are prone to be more careful and watch their actions, sure, but at what cost to their job performance? That is what the entire source, and this portion of the debate, has been about. 5a. Pro mocks my source (completely valid if going through all points, which I had to unfortunately and painstakingly do, because such a complete list has been hard to find on the net), and then claims that following the rules doesn't add stress. I'm not quite sure what she means by this, as my point simply was that officers are already subject to many, many rules and regulations on their actions. My opponent concedes that following the rules is of the utmost concern, and I agree - so what is the point of contention here? Indeed, my opponent simply concedes that there is an expectation to follow the rules, and by and large officers do - recording will not necessarily change that. 7. a) My opponen maybe doesn't know, but laws are often contradictory because they're full of exceptions, counter-exceptions, criteria, and judgements. It's not hard to see how a recording penalty should have exceptions, and how the evidence - namely, the recording - must be present at any trial to ensure that either side is simply not making up stories. b) Again, my opponent possibly doesn't understand how the law works. If an illegal gun is used to kill someone, that gun doesn't become inadmissable because its illegal to use. It's considered evidence, and indeed, the tool used to commit the crime. It's fully admissable in court. Even in brutality cases, exceptions can and are made for such evidence. As for my opponents other point, I've said time, and time, and time again - there are exceptions to every rule. If officers are recording committing abuse of their power, there should be exceptions to the law. But if not, then really, what is the point? What are the benefits that outweigh the drawback except for people's amusement? My opponent doesn't say, hm. 8. If the officer was unaware of being recorded, then the point is moot, no? Officers can only stop crimes they see. The second point is a little silly; if an officer is really bent on stopping you from recording, either with this law or not, they will. In conclusion, I'll just say this: I'm not defending a popular position, here. No doubt about it. But I believe I've presented some pretty serious points here, as Pro did as well. The entire, central point though, and my opponent has refused to admit this, is that police officers are people to; they feel the pressures of their job, and have rights under civil code just as the usual citizenry do. There is no doubt they hold a lot more authority than your average citizen, but there are ways to keep this accountable - recording interactions simply is not one of them. I've made and conceded that there should be obvious exceptions to the rule, but my opponent continues forward and says that, no matter what, record officers - even if they aren't doing anything wrong. Even if they're doing something sensitive. Indeed, she wants to sic papparrazzi on the police, more or less, in some valiant crusade against abuse, regardless of what it does to police performance and officer's lives. All well and fine, but if you prefer a more nuanced, balanced approach, that says brutality should be stopped but privacy and performance should not be put at risk, vote CON. Thank you.

Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: Let's look at your rebuttals. "My argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered." Currently, you have provided absolutely NO value(which I did of morality), and NO value criterion(which mine was enforcement), which you might have a value, but until then, you do not have one unless stated. By default, since I have a value and value criterion and she has not stated hers since, mine are the standing values. "You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement." 1. I never said that all cameras needed to be in 3D. I only said that cameras only had a 2D perspective. I never implied that we needed 3D, which implies the STRAW MAN! 2. Ok. Let's look at a police officer employment. Let's look at my local city. If a local city has, let's say, 500 police officers, and you are saying that they should all have body cameras, then look at the cost provided. 500*350=$175000 dollars! This is a lot of money! Money does not grow on trees, as this will increase debt in the country and decrease spending in many needed areas. 3. 2D movies cannot make a fair judgement. Cameras cannot perceive the 3rd dimension that is perceived by the human eye-which is distance. Cameras can't record danger cues because you can usually tell when you touch a subject whether he/she will have an objection, but cameras lack the sensory cue, which makes it lacking the important thing:the danger cue. 4. Cameras will always make us play the guessing game, and the speed is very difference. Cameras record at MUCH higher speed, and the camera will make us play the coulda-shoulda game, because it is not what someone perceived. It is a nonliving thing, and we can scrutinize it for detail, but that is only 1 sided-by the officer. Witnesses are far many more and they will be multi sided. "By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie." 1. I never said that people don't lie. 2. It states in the witness oath, "I swear that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Affirmation: I solemnly affirm that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." This is the basis I am stating. Many witnesses can be provided, so we can get multiple things from the whole truth. How can they lie if they swear before the oath? My opponent thinks I am strawmanning. However, I am not. The fact that you did not break down my 1st and 2nd contentions make the fact that they are valid, and that you don't have any say to it. Secondly, my opponent did not state her value. This is what I stated. I never said her case had no value whatsoever. Thirdly, everything she said was copied directly and in quoted. Then, I broke down on the thoughts I had to counter. With this, she did not answer my basic status quo of my argument:the morality of cameras. I have proven with many reasons and examples why my contentions stand. I have a direct value of morality, which has been PROVEN with the 3 contentions. In fact, she is strawmanning with many examples. (ie.with her saying that the cameras have to be 3D). I never said that. I said that cameras can only see in 2D, and witnesses are more reliable because they see it in 3D. Then, she stated I said that people don't lie. I never stated that or implied that. I only implied that in the jury oath, when the people are stating their evidence, they can't lie. So with these reasons and many more, it has been obvious to vote for Con today. ~TheResistance

Title: A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Content: The majority of people that try and record interactions with law enforcement are often times detained and told that they do not have the right to record the police. Whether or not it is illegal has been a heated topic in many debates but the point of this debate is whether or not a law should be enacted and the reasoning why.

Title: Crime cameras are an intrusion on individual privacy rights Content: Former Oakland Mayor (now California Attorney General) Jerry Brown said in 1999 when the City of Oakland rejected proposed video surveillance cameras: "Reducing crime is something the community and police must work on together. Installing a few or a few dozen surveillance cameras will not make us safe. It should also not be forgotten that the intrusive powers of the state are growing with each passing decade."[8]

Title: Crime cameras offer conclusive, unbiased evidence in court. Content: New Orleans Mayor Nagin said in 2005 when unveiling his crime camera program: "These cameras not only record crime, they are witnesses that cannot be intimidated."[6] Indeed, when crime cameras capture a crime, they expose the reality of those involved and the details of their actions. They reveal the truth, upon which justice relies. This stands in stark contrast with less detailed testimonies and heresy, making cameras particularly valuable to the justice system.

Title: Security scans of children are not pornographic Content: Arthur Weinreb. "Full-body scanners; it's just common sense." Canada Free Press. January 8, 2010: "Minors should be scanned and to link these scans to child porn is ludicrous. Police officers routinely possess child pornography all the time. Not only do they possess it but they distribute it to prosecutors who further distribute it to defense lawyers. Then the prosecutors further distribute it to judges who show juries. For some reason these people aren’t considered to have committed criminal acts because they are doing what they do to protect the public. Just like those who operate full body scanners are doing."

Title: freedom of privacy is threatened Content: The House of Lords have expressed their view that privacy is an "essential prerequisite to the exercise of individual freedom" (1). We can no longer say that we live private lives when every move is being watched by one out of the four million CCTV cameras in Britain. Our every move is being watched. Such surveillance renders our society as equivalent to a large scale big brother. Our every move can be traced and information can be gathered about our daily activities. If this information were to be misplaced, which central government seems to do frequently, then who knows what other breaches our freedoms will endure. (1)http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/06/surveillance-freedom-peers

Title: Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy Content: Security camera in public places are an invasion of privacy, feeling that your every move is being watched is not a good feeling. People should be free to travel or move a mall, street or a shop without being photograph or recorded. Being constantly watched is like being in jail and ordinary people are losing their freedom because of those security cameras. Another point to consider is, although law enforcement agencies claimed that only criminals should fear security cameras, one must keep in mind that some people have a fear of corrupt authorities who can use information obtain from security camera, in a twisted fashion to victimize others. Although, security cameras in high profile public places are a must, but the need to flood public places with cameras is not such a great idea, as it would cause more problems then it would solve.

Title: Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. Content: Round 2: PRO girr29 (vs) CON whitesoxfan450 I look forward to what should be a great debate and discussion about why surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. Before we start this round I would assume my opponent would accept the United States as the governmental system in which we talk about in this debate round. If they would like to make this a bigger issue in his next speech then I will address the issue there. I will first start off by defining three key terms to this debate that come to us from the Unabridged dictionary, from dictionary. com. Surveillance – a close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion. Public – open to all persons. Substantially – something basic or essential; fundamental. I reserve the right to define these terms again and any other terms that might become important throughout the rest of the debate round. Let's move to some argumentation. I: To start things off let's go in depth in the true meaning of this resolution. A: Let's first start by talking about the public areas. Public is defined as open to all persons So therefore, there is no invasion of privacy if the government put up some more cameras in the public. So the government will not be hurting any fundamental or human rights by making more surveillance cameras in public. B: Let's look to the surveillance part of the resolution. Surveillance is defined as a close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion. So the whole point of surveillance cameras are to keep us safer from the ones in public who are suspicious and could potentially commit suspicious acts. So the whole point of making more surveillance cameras is to keep us even safer from those who could potentially hurt us. C: Finally, let's look to the end of the resolution where it says should be substantially increased. That doesn't mean I have to do it, doesn't mean I need to make a plan, all it means is that I just have to agree that…. yes…we should make more surveillance cameras. But furthermore on this substantially is defined as something basic or essential; fundamental. I do believe that is something basic, that is essential, and that it is of course fundamental to improve the protection of the public and it can be done by making more surveillance cameras. II: The resolution affirmed improves the Safety, Security, and Stability of society. A: Safety, Security, and Stability, or as I like to call them, the three Ss, are inherent rights that a society deserves. By increasing the number of cameras in public areas, the three Ss have more potential to stand. That is why I do believe that the resolution should be affirmed because the three Ss should be upheld and that's why we should substantially increase the number of surveillance cameras in public. B: The fewer cameras there are, the higher chance of crime happening. If suspicious characters know there are less surveillance cameras watching them, they will be more willing to commit criminal acts. As a report in the csmonitor talked about in 2007 about surveillance cameras, "a lot of the time people don't like the fact that big brother is watching them, but the matter of the fact is that big brother keeps us safe. Without someone watching us, this country would be a lot worse off. " By having more surveillance cameras we truly do what is right for the public. III: A substantial increase SHOULD happen. A: Some arguments that might be brought up in this debate round are that I am trying to implement a plan or trying to make something happen. But that is not the burden of the pro in this round. I believe that all I have to prove is that it should happen. So I don't have to discuss how much money or man hours it would take to make more cameras go up or any real logistics of the situation, just that it should happen. B: The only argumentation that the con can really only bring up is that more surveillance means more watching over us like a big brother. But that shouldn't be a reason to not do something. Just because people don't liked being watched, doesn't mean we sacrifice our all together safety, security, and stability. So at the end of this debate round you have to look at the wording of the resolution. My first contention talks about the wording of the resolution and the importance of that. Then in my second and third I basically bring up the points about how the three Ss are protected on the pro, and that all I have to prove is that this should happen and I don't have to implement a plan.

Title: Resolved: The UK police force should routinely be armed with handguns. Content: Resolved: The UK's Police force should be issued guns and should carry them routinely. I haven't done a serious debate since I first got in here so I thought I should do three before I go. Rules: This debate should be impossible to accept for now I'll open it later. No forfeiture All arguments must be within the debate, but sources can be put in the comment section if needed. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere No trolling My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to challenge my definitions The BOP is shared First round is acceptance and definitions only. My opponent must argue in R1 but only post constrictive criticism in R4. Good luck Con.

Title: Traffic light cameras Content: Sorry for taking so long! Been crazy busy! I do agree with it helping save lives, Rich. But I still see the cameras as more of a hazard to us then helping us. I think it definitley makes people act more moronic because of the cameras. I do see what you're saying about people knowing where the cameras are, but call me old fashioned- I would still rather have an actual human tell me that I am doing something wrong versus a camera snapping a picture! To me, I think we would be better off as a community if the streets were patrolled more. Maybe- instead of making jobs for people to sit behind desks and monitor the cameras, we can have police officers more frequently patrolling the area. I do, though, see the positives to having the cameras in place. I just think that it becomes mroe hazardous to us because now- everytime someone goes under a yellow light, they are cringing because they don't know if they are being put on candid camera! It becomes a sticky situation with me now because I can see both sides of the argument, however, I still see it as a money making scheme for the government's benefit and a hazard to us. Take it away, Rich.

Title: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised Content: I am affirmative for the Resolve: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised. I will wait for the negative/con to accept this debate and then following their post that ONLY accepts, I will post the 1AC speech and the debate shall begin. Thanks and good luck!

Title: administrative efficiency; ensuring justice Content: The Jean Charles Menezes case would not have been able investigated as thoroughly as it was were it not for the CCTV footage which was obtained at the Stockwell tube station where he was shot. A more recent example where CCTV has been used in the justice system is with the trial of the murderer of Rhys Jones. Such a heinous act would still be lingering and unsolved were it not for the ever watchful eye of the CCTV cameras. Such justice and peace of mind cannot be equated to "freedom of privacy".

Title: yes yes yes check check check. Content: Yes let parents have the option to check someone to find out if someone is a pathetic peado. Save the children not the pathetic pervo. Anyone who objects to this have something to hide ?. And more street cameras will help society, that is if there is a real punishment for the offenders which unfortunately at the moment there is not.

Title: Crime cameras in public spaces do not really invade privacy. Content: Ken Garcia. "Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F." The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - "I count myself among those opposed to more government interference in personal privacy, but that’s not really a big issue here. These cameras are going on public streets, not in bedrooms, and those who object are ignoring the obvious, ideology serving here as a highly effective blinder."

Title: Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy. Content: Good luck! ============================================== "Security Cameras stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals. " ============================================== The resolution clearly states that "Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy. ". You are pro which means that you must show why security cameras are not invasions of privacy. All you have written is that they can stop crimes and identify criminals. This does not show why they are not an invasion of privacy. I could say that keeping every person under 18 in the U. S. in prison cell filled with security cameras and guarded by security personel woud stop murders by people inder 18 but that hardly proves that it would not be an invasion of privacy and a violation of rigts. I await my opponent's response.

Title: Crime cameras Content: Shift in crime means cameras are working, should be expanded

Title: Warning !.... Content: I believe that photo-radar cameras used to take pictures of drivers as a way of lay enforcement should be illegal. As a citizen of Arizona, our state recently tried to use these cameras set up in various areas to try to catch speeders. For about two years we had these cameras up and as of this last year they were taken down. I will explain why. They are ineffective! What happens when they set up these cameras is that people know where they are. They may be speeding, but if they know a camera is coming up they will slow down just for the camera and then speed back up. Sure, it may catch people every now and then, but then what? What happens once they take your picture of you speeding and your drivers license? Well, they send you a letter. That's it. Many people I know have disregarded these letters and gotten away just okay. But say on the slim chance an officer of the law delivers this letter to you, how does he prove it was you driving the vehicle? He can't! I let friends or family borrow my car all the time. It would be absurd to punish someone if they were not the one driving. I propose that these cameras be illegal because of their ineffectiveness.

Title: Burq/niqab ban preserves identification for fighting crime Content: Jean Francois-Cope. "Tearing away the veil." New York Times. May 4th, 2010: "This face covering poses a serious safety problem at a time when security cameras play an important role in the protection of public order. An armed robbery recently committed in the Paris suburbs by criminals dressed in burqas provided an unfortunate confirmation of this fact. As a mayor, I cannot guarantee the protection of the residents for whom I am responsible if masked people are allowed to run about. [...] The visibility of the face in the public sphere has always been a public safety requirement. It was so obvious that until now it did not need to be enshrined in law. But the increase in women wearing the niqab, like that of the ski mask favored by criminals, changes that. We must therefore adjust our law, without waiting for the phenomenon to spread."

Title: Cameras speed up responses to crime and injuries. Content: Jenny Rees. "City cameras 'don't cut crime'". Whales Online. April 25, 2005 - "they allow police officers to respond to incidents more quickly, reducing the number of people who attend hospital accident and emergency departments."

Title: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Content: As my opponent stated, today"s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. What he is not considering is that this same claim applies to his own stance as well. He is arguing that wearing body cameras will provide objective footage, which, in turn, will allow society to judge on situation. The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair. Society have their own idea of what it means to be "fair". Their own core values and principles. Some people might not share those values and principles. Just because majority are majority does not logically lead to conclusion that their stance is automatically correct. Think about ancient rome, where slavery was legal. Or think about middle east, where killing homosexuals is legal. Or think about nazi germany, where gassing jews was legal. Just because something is considered "legal' does not mean that it is right thing to do. With body cameras government will have absolute control over police force, meaning that governments own interpretation of "right" and "justice" will be forced upon people more effectively. I am against that. Even tho I do, generally speaking, agree with most (if not all) of the governments values, if one day I will not, I will have no way to stand up to the government. Everything will be recorded and people will be jailed based on governments own, egoistic interpretation of "justice". I believe that granting government ultimate control will lead to disaster, because if government is going to change, there is going to be nothing you can do to avoid their "unjust" (according to you) punishment.

Title: arm the police Content: Arming the police is a necessary step

Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras are too costly for too few benefits

Title: Benefits of crime cameras may not be reflected in crime rates. Content: John Firman, the director of research at the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said a 2007 ABC article: "We know cameras enhance that capacity but saying for sure that they reduced crime by 20 percent, that's another thing. Anecdotally, we know that they have had an impact."[1]

Title: information gathered used to fight terrorism Content: Such examination is only utilised in a society if it is revealed to society. At present, we are not informed of any terrorist activity before it occurs, we are merely left to carry on with our daily lives. We receive no benefit. As with the Twin Towers, when it was held that there was intelligence as to the plane hi-jackers intentions, yet it was not given serious thought. To justify an encroachment upon our right, surely the CCTV cameras should provide some benefit for us individual members of society. Retroactive action is simply not good enough.

Title: Recruitment will be adversely affected if the police are armed Content: The police themselves are calling for more routine arming in the United Kingdom, through both the unions that represent rank and file policemen, and the bodies which speak for the senior officers. If we want them to uphold law and order, we should trust the police's judgement about the tools they need to carry out their task. To the contrary, recruitment will also suffer if police officers are seen as too vulnerable, as easy targets for criminals because they have no proper means to defend themselves.

Title: Spending on cameras for a "sense of safety" is wasteful Content: Heather Knight. "Crime cameras not capturing many crimes". San Francisco Chronicle. March 21, 2008 - "not all city officials think it's wise to spend money on public safety measures if the best thing that can be said about them is they have a placebo effect for worried residents."

Title: The police are purchasing military equipment for use against the citizens of their community. Content: The argument that there is never a valid reason for a civilian police force to possess military technology is na"ve. The problem lies not with the equipment but rather with judicious use thereof as well as with the quality of the our civic officers. I am not arguing that Keene, NH needs a tank (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) but not all militarization in the police force is bad or unwarranted.

Title: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised Content: Being generous, I'll ignore the problematic wording of the motion. For the purposes of this debate, I'm happy to assume the resolution to be functionally equivalent to: "Cameras should be placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be publicly televised." I await dasamster's arguments.

Title: CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified Content: It is unfortunate that my opponent hasn't engaged with the spirit of this debate. Nonetheless, I could understand his approach if I had actually made some semantic error in my resolution, allowing him to argue on some marginal case. I have, however, not done so - in his attempt to argue from semantics, my points have been misrepresented and misunderstood. My opponent said: "How was it clear what mode of morality I was going to debate when I "took the Con side of this debate"? ? Can you read minds? I would be interested in how you perform such sorcery. " Re-reading my statement, I said: "Yes, he has chosen his own morality. That much was clear the moment that he took the CON side of this debate. " This does not imply that I knew exactly how my opponent would argue his case. It only says that I knew he would take a position in this debate (i. e. that he would choose his own morality). How did I know that he would take a position in this debate? Because he accepted the debate, as CON. And, indeed, he has taken a position - namely, that, "CCTV cameras in public places are NOT morally justified" - even if it is an unargued one. QED. My opponent further said: "Your premise is that "CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified". You did not set up parameters for the argument. " This is simply false, for the reasons that I painstakingly laid out in the last round, and the one before that. Furthermore, it is not a "premise" that CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified - that is the "resolution". There are multiple arguments that I have deployed in favour of this resolution, each of which have their own premises. For each of these multiple arguments, there are various ways that my opponent could have attacked them. I set out parameters for the debate, clearly showing my opponent how he could have argued against the resolution. He did not. My opponent finished his round by arguing that: "All I needed to do was to show that based on some set of morality, CCTV cameras in public places are NOT morally justified. I did this in the last round. " No, that is not accurate. I have given arguments for my morality. I have set out a framework by which it is possible to argue against this morality. (Which, by the way, I shouldn't have needed to do, but I did anyway. ) Given the framework set out, and the arguments that I have given in accordance with this framework, he would need to actually GIVE arguments for his morality. As he has not done so, I win by default. Furthermore, were he to try and attack my arguments now, it would be grossly unfair: this being the last round of this debate, I would not have any reasonable chance to respond in kind. Even under this scenario, I urge a straight PRO win due to the circumstances; or, at the very least, a 4-3 vote for PRO, in alignment with the voting categories. I rest my case.

Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: Experiencing freedom is not being watched almost 24/7. There is something called privacy. "Cameras merely observe," no cameras watch. And that would be counted as stalking. Yes; I agree that it will help crime rates, but it makes people more creative. They are going to commit crimes where cameras aren't. And what happens if power goes out, or the cameras break?