Give me an idea?

I've read some pro/con pieces on the subject. Personally, I'm all for Patrol Car Video Surveillance, so the only "con" arguement that stuck in my mind is that video tapes can give a false impression of what actually happened. Provocative acts can take place off camera. Sight lines are limited and the point of view may be unfairly skewed.

Knowing that their activities are subject to video review may slow police actions and put them in danger.

Thank you so much Noddy, thats a great help to get started with. I have been sitting here drawing complete blanks on the subject. Its hard to find the "Con" side of an issue if you do not see one....lol

camera failure? technology will fail just when you want it most.

Thats a bit desparate but you might be able to do something with it

How about talented and nefarious perps staging completely false and misleading scenes to frame Our Boys in Blue?

Or juries being so awed by technology that they fail to take other pieces of evidence into account.

Personally, I'm all for videos in both police cars and school busses--with audio, as well.

The ubiquitous unblinking electronic eye. Ish.

LOL, HEY...that will work...........



You betcha!

The Taser Gun was much easier to find "Cons" issues. After reading about the gun, I might actually have a problem with using it...maybe. I believe it would be dependent on the situation at hand.

If were a violent act, and I were threatened in the moment, yes...I wouldn't have a problem shooting someone with 50,000 volts.

But, the problem is, you don't have time to react to such situations and have them recall whether or not they have a heart condition. It has shown in some instances to be fatal. It causes the nerves to contract, and causes abnormal heartbeats, sometimes causing them to completely stop.

One of the articles I read, Amnesty International was raising issues on its use, that the stun gun had been used in school and against the elderly...and that it inflicted more problems on teenagers and the old, then it did the in-betweens.....

Can't stun guns induce some sort of seizure or stroke in older people?

Noddy raised some excellent points, a jury could be mislead by such
surveillance cameras. Also, if they're manually operable, the police
officers could manipulate the footage of an incident.

I'm not sure about the seizures or stroke, most of the articles I have read point more in the direction of cardiac arrest.

I read one article that suggested that if a violator is on coke, meth or another form of drug and hit with the taser, that it causes a semi-sorta chemical reaction in their body, therefore...no matter the age, the final result is usually death.

AND, AND, AAAND, you could be using some form of technology dvd playback or something whilst making your presentation and have it set to fail or not work at all during your presentation.
Another point is how dependant on technology we have become. could this become the case with video evidence? could you make a case for a perp being let off sometime in the future because video evidence was not available. or a cop not being able to act because there was no video to record/substantiate his actions.