In keeping with the Law Enforcement trend, should MPs/SPs/SECFOR personnel on gates be required to wear body cams?

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 May 2016 20:53:38 -0400

CAVEAT: Understandably in a SCIF or other sensitive areas, this may would not be an option and they could be turned off or left in the patrol vehicle.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2016 9:04 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 May 2016 21:04:42 -0400

I am in favor of all who enforce laws (state, federal, UCMJ, or any local laws of ordances) to wear body cameras to protect themselves and the public.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 29 at 2016 9:06 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 29 May 2016 21:06:44 -0400

We should simply put cameras on the gates. I don't believe we necessarily need them on the Gate Guards, but we absolutely should have them on the gates as a matter of security. That itself will provide oversight.

However, extending your question, should Roadmasters and Patrolling MPs be required to use body cams and dash cams?

I personally am a big fan of them. It records the interaction and is beneficial to BOTH parties. Especially when we have junior members interacting with senior members. It can potentially change how the interaction goes down, and attempt to influence based on difference of ranks. It promotes professionalism.

Response by SN Greg Wright made May 29 at 2016 9:44 PM

SN Greg Wright — Sun, 29 May 2016 21:44:54 -0400

In every SCIF I was ever in, guards weren't allowed inside the actual facility, so that'd be a non-issue.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2016 10:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 May 2016 22:05:45 -0400

For a short amount of time all the MPs on fort Campbell were required to draw and use body cams and they were a good idea to protect the MPs working shift but there were a lot of problems maintence wise with them so it was nixed

Response by SFC Giancarlo Rici made May 29 at 2016 10:09 PM

SFC Giancarlo Rici — Sun, 29 May 2016 22:09:49 -0400

Well, last I checked, there is an army reg that Prohibits recording.

Further there is a recent study that was release that showed an increase in UOF (use of force) when law enforcement personnel are wearing body cam's Body cameras only show that officers are doing the right thing.

Response by SSG George Holtje made May 29 at 2016 11:27 PM

SSG George Holtje — Sun, 29 May 2016 23:27:07 -0400

The gates have some kind of monitoring. At least, I have seen the cameras there. I do not know about recording voice though.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2016 11:57 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 May 2016 23:57:38 -0400

Funny thing in my town, anti police protesters screamed and yelled for the entire force to get them. Now they may have different tune. Almost a week ago we had a riot and people were throwing rocks at the police. Some of those people were the ones wanting them to have the cameras. Well, some of those folks are going to be arrested because the cameras are able to provide evidence against them.

Response by SFC Robert Bower made May 30 at 2016 2:55 AM

SFC Robert Bower — Mon, 30 May 2016 02:55:07 -0400

No, too much shit to worry about already!

Response by SSG Roderick Smith made May 30 at 2016 3:34 AM

SSG Roderick Smith — Mon, 30 May 2016 03:34:41 -0400

I wore a Taser Axon Flex body camera for almost two years. It was literally the best thing ever. To say that I am an advocate for them would be a catastrophic understatement!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2016 4:39 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 May 2016 04:39:13 -0400

As an MP, the main purpose of those "body cams" is officer safety. Most major law enforcement departments provide them to officers and require them to be worn. It protects the officer if he is ever called into questioning on the events that took place.
The military is a little different. We are required by regulation to maintain our professionalism at all times. Now, if someone wants to go hands-on of get aggressive, then we have a little more freedom. But at the end of the day, the camera's should be given to our Military Police. I believe it would provide a check on both sides of the lense, both MP and subject.

Response by LTC Paul Heinlein made May 30 at 2016 1:40 PM

LTC Paul Heinlein — Mon, 30 May 2016 13:40:31 -0400

Many do already. Of the complaints I have seen against Officers, all have been resolved by video (in car camera, body camera, or static location cameras) within minutes to the benefit of the officers.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2016 2:58 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 May 2016 14:58:33 -0400

Ok why? I can understand on the civilian side, but on a military base? Is there a current need for them?

Response by SSG Michael LeGrand made May 30 at 2016 8:47 PM

SSG Michael LeGrand — Mon, 30 May 2016 20:47:17 -0400

To be honest i don't think there is that much of a need at the gates but if any thing there should be cameras at each gate.

Response by PO3 Rick Kundiger made Jun 1 at 2016 10:00 PM

PO3 Rick Kundiger — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 22:00:25 -0400

Yup. On patrol, at the gate, responding to a call (outside of a secured area), absolutely. Body-cams do a lot to protect both the security officer and the person(s) they are engaging with. There are bad actors on both sides. The body-cams will both help the sec-officers prove their case and protect them from false accusations or assumptions; while at the same time they can ensure that persons charged with an offense during an interaction with a sec-officer have a record of said offense. They have a career to protect too, and while a vast majority of sec-officers are good, upstanding people, there are some who are less so.

Body-cams just make sense. And the technology exists, is inexpensive, and readily available.

Response by SFC Bill Schmitz made Jun 4 at 2016 4:59 PM

SFC Bill Schmitz — Sat, 04 Jun 2016 16:59:08 -0400

I can remember a few instances that a body cam video would have cast away any doubts about what happened at the gates!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2016 6:59 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:59:45 -0400

I'm skeptical when police officers oppose body cams. Anyone in uniform is acting as a representative of the organization they represent (ie; police are representatives of the government)... thus the courts have stated that the police have no expectation of privacy in those situations. If there is no expectation of privacy, why wouldn't we want filming of everything they're doing? Others have pointed out that this makes identifying perpetrators easier. It also prevents and makes responding to illegitimate acts "under color of law" easier.
As for MPs/SFs, I view them as no different than other police in this scenario.

Here's one for you; should Soldiers/Marines/etc on combat patrol wear bodycams? They are, again, uniformed representatives of their government who, as such, have no expectation of privacy. They are also far more likely to be involved in violence where eye-witness statements may be questionable.

Response by CPL Jeffrey Solomon made Sep 13 at 2020 3:16 PM

CPL Jeffrey Solomon — Sun, 13 Sep 2020 15:16:58 -0400