assuming that many police officers are decent people with nothing to hide, could they make a collective personal statement by wearing this sort of a badge? That way not only would people be encouraged to record them if they so wish (let’s say for the “Our Heroes Wearing Blue” documentary) but also the folks who don’t wear such a badge would conveniently stand out for all to see.
What could or would the establishment do to fight against this sort of hypothetical “revolt” from the ranks?
Police aren’t individual actors. They are governmental employees subject to strict regulation. Any policy decisions are made by supervisors, up through the level of city councils and mayors (or the equivalents elsewhere).
The establishment would discipline the individual accordingly.
If you want to argue whether this is a good thing or not, ask a mod to move it to another forum.
LOL, who said anything about “argue”? If this is a good idea overall but cannot be used as directly and as broadly as stated above, the sensible thing to do is to look for more narrow applications where it may work. And if it is not a good idea, then no need to do that.
Incidentally, if you ask the mod for help in finding the “ignore” button, then I am sure he will be very helpful.
Not to mention unionized.
Even if you do assume that they are decent people with nothing to hide (most of the ones I know personally are, at least) there is the fact that when something is taken out of context, the public in general can easily misinterpret or overreact to it. I would bet that most of those decent police officers would rather not have their every move videotaped and reviewed.
Say for example they need to arrest a crack whore who is known to carry a razor and has already cut several officers the last half a dozen times she was arrested. The officers know they have to subdue her real quick or they could end up dead or permanently disabled. Without knowing the story behind it, the video clip looks like two big brute guys using excessive force on a poor defenseless woman for no damn good reason. And if the officers happen to be white and the killer crack whore happens to be black, it looks like some kind or racist thing.
As with Exapno Mapcase, I’m not trying to steer this into GD territory or anything, just pointing out some potential problems with the practical application of it.
To specifically address the OP though, police officers have a very strict dress code, and adding any sort of sign or badge to it would be against that code in most jurisdictions. Everything on the uniform is specified down to the smallest detail. Even hairstyles and facial hair is strictly regulated. Even if an officer did want to wear such a badge, the dress code wouldn’t allow it.
engineer_comp_geek, the fighting with the diverse people issue makes sense. So perhaps actions of this sort may make particular sense in the hideously white sort of areas.
As for the police dress code, so on which level does that get determined? Who determines dress code in a major city? In a small town? What say do the elected officials have in this, if any at all?
I think that it’d just implicitly encourage some people to stalk and videotape police officers, looking to record a “gotcha” moment. “But you said I was free to record you!!!”
Which aren’t typically the sorts of areas in which the populace tends to distrust the police (which seems to be part of what you’re trying to address with your suggestion).
Well, this thread is concerned primarily with the implementation details. The hypothetical reasons why various entities (police, government, activist citizen groups etc) may be interested in something like that is a separate (and much less factual 
) issue.
Sticking purely to factual answers, I’ll point out that this sort of explanation and context is exactly what the court system (and various internal grievance procedures) is set up to provide. It’s not like a police officer can be jailed/fired based purely on a thirty-second snippet of video with no possibility of appeal or explanation. (Not yet, anyway, though may happen soon in Wisconsin).
And I don’t believe there is any official court or grievance system that doesn’t pretty clearly give much more weight to the testimony of police officers than to the testimony of someone who’s been arrested. This of course is exactly the issue that videotaping of officers can help overcome.
I mean, if videotape is so prejudicial and misleading, why are the police allowed to use wiretaps and video as evidence? Shouldn’t we ban it for the police too and make everything come down to he said/she said?
I’ll just say that it’s naive to think that you can separate the two issues that easily, and bow out of this thread.
kenobi 65, who said anything about bowing out? I have read factual responses and asked factual clarification questions based on that. See my post #6. So why don’t you join my fight against ignorance, if you have any input on that?
I simply think it’s a profoundly goofy idea, though possibly motivated by a perception of some issue which needs to be corrected (although you apparently have no interest in detailing the issue which you feel it would correct).
Your OP seems to suggest that you believe that many (most?) police officers would want to willingly do this, but that some higher authority prevents them from doing so. Personal opinion: I’d be highly surprised if either half of that assumption were broadly true.
kenobi 65, I don’t wish this thread to be dragged off to GD where it will be smothered out of existence by a storm of ****. Let’s stick to the facts and get Colibri persecute the overly passionate debaters, shall we?
All the more so given that issues I am discussing here are well within the realm of human experience, for at least some Dopers. Surely the “who sets American cops’ dress code?” is a factual question? And directly relevant to the OP topic?
I imagine it is different depending on the specific area, but I can tell you that in Baltimore, the city council has worked with police department officials when changes have been made to the dress code. It’s usually a fairly long and drawn out process and requires a whole bunch of people to get together and agree to it.
I’d have to think that in a smaller town things would have to be a lot simpler. At the other extreme I imagine Officer Barney Fife just asking Sheriff Andy if it’s ok for him to wear the badge.
I thought the uniform was that badge.
I really don’t see this as a General Question and am moving it to IMHO. I’d try Great Debates, but it doesn’t rise to that.
samclem Moderator
code_grey. A snarky tone isn’t the way to go in General Questions. Try to be better. No warning.
samclem Moderator.
That happens some already anyway. And regardless of what the laws say, that’s a good thing. The police are our public employees. There’s nothing wrong with public supervision.
So? Let them explain the story behind it if necessary.
There’s no advantage to your proposed badge. Police, when at work, are in the public domain. You can videotape them. You don’t need their permission. Just like you don’t need the permission of all of the other random folks who end up as part of your vacation videos.
Now, some officers most certainly do not want to be videotaped, but that doesn’t make it illegal (despite their wish that it did).
It is actually illegal in some jurisdictions. It’s just that those laws are unconstitutional when applied to someone who is not otherwise interfering with the police.