I think the "corrected" title works fine, actually. The point of the article is not just that complaints declined (though that may be the point you care about the most)...the point is that even though cameras are credited for this improvement, larger (more politically known) police departments are opposing it, for various reasons.
I was really surprised to see that Bloomberg opposed it. Yes, the startup cost is high, but it seems like it'd be offset by the decline in fighting lawsuits.
> But when Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled on Monday that the city’s stop-and-frisk program was unconstitutional and ordered that police officers in certain precincts strap tiny cameras to their uniforms to record their dealings with the public, Mr. Bloomberg’s response was immediate and emphatic.
>
> “It would be a nightmare,” he said. “We can’t have your cameraman follow you around and film things without people questioning whether they deliberately chose an angle, whether they got the whole picture in.”
Um, just like you can't have cops carry guns because you'll have people questioning whether they were right to shoot and kill someone? Strange reasoning from the mayor.
Police handguns are cheap, and the cost argument is not only not viable, it is probably only being used because it sounds better than the alternative of 'we don't want the NYPD subject to such transparency and scrutiny from the public'.
Police handguns aren't very expensive. The Glock 17, a very popular model, is about $600 and I wouldn't be surprised if police departments get discounts.
So the cameras, apparently at $900/officer, are hardly an obscene expense. That is what, a week's worth of pay? I should hope NYC could scrap together that sort of cash.
I assumed it was about CCTV cameras based on the corrected title. Wearable cameras is a much more interesting story - glad I hit the comments to figure that out.
I was really surprised to see that Bloomberg opposed it. Yes, the startup cost is high, but it seems like it'd be offset by the decline in fighting lawsuits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/nyregion/order-that-police...
> But when Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled on Monday that the city’s stop-and-frisk program was unconstitutional and ordered that police officers in certain precincts strap tiny cameras to their uniforms to record their dealings with the public, Mr. Bloomberg’s response was immediate and emphatic. > > “It would be a nightmare,” he said. “We can’t have your cameraman follow you around and film things without people questioning whether they deliberately chose an angle, whether they got the whole picture in.”
Um, just like you can't have cops carry guns because you'll have people questioning whether they were right to shoot and kill someone? Strange reasoning from the mayor.