Latest update January 8th, 2025 4:30 AM
Dec 10, 2019 Editorial
They are here, forty of them according to the Guyana Police Force. A senior official has confirmed that they have already been “put to use.” That would be those forty newly acquired body cameras now deployed as part of efforts by law enforcement to come to grips with crime in Guyana, and in an aboveboard manner that stands up to the usual challenges.
Those would be challenges of who fabricated a story (official or violator), who set somebody up (police or civilian), and whose account of events and circumstances should succeed before the glares of inquiry, dispute, or criticism.
People in the United States have some suspicious and nagging incidents of the technology not turned on, or inexplicably missing in action, when most needed. That would be where the rages run riot and reasoning and cooler heads are forced to run for cover, since little by way of defensive or corroborating visual evidence is found.
As if to minimise such instances from occurring, the authoritative word from the Guyana Police Force brass is “The ranks will be required to wear the body cameras on their shifts at all times, and should activate them when it is absolutely necessary in situations such as: Traffic stops, priority responses, vehicle pursuits, arrest situations, vehicle searches, physical confrontations, and crimes in progress, etc.” That is encouraging in its essences and intents and should earn some positives from the public as to what it could mean. But there are some concerns.
We commend the administration of the GPF for this introduction of body cameras into its policing programme. Now, as much as we would like to move on and wait for confirmation of our commonsense belief as to the sure value of these cameras, there are some points that must be raised, for to do otherwise would be unsatisfactory on our part.
It makes for good sense that “the ranks will be required to wear…at all times” and, in time, this should be as automatic as the other pieces of official attire, such as uniform, guns, notebooks, and so forth. Even if they are found to be cumbersome and restraining, ranks should welcome them, if only for the support that they enable during tense situations that are called into question.
In other words, it could be the best defence for police officers called to task for failing to follow standard procedures and ending up in conduct unbecoming.
On the other hand, there are a couple of things relative to these procedures that are not so comforting, because they are seen as furnishing loopholes, which are sure to be exploited and used to tell a story that is unrelated to what actually did happen.
Or, even more egregiously, to tell no story at all, which is the blankness and silence that damns. This is postured here because there is this excerpt from the above quote that opens the door for calculated mischief: should activate it when it is absolutely necessary.”
There are some problems with both the action and the judgment call embedded.
To approach this in reverse order, leaving the determination of “when absolutely necessary” to ranks on the road affords room through which a container truck could be driven though without risk.
What is the definition of that, and what are the procedural specifics where there are no ifs ands or buts regarding this standard of absolutely necessity, since that could vary from one person to another, and from police to public?
The GPF did provide some granularity as to where and when, but it is still very broad, and could be subject to misunderstanding, in the heat of the moment.
In addition, the conditional of “should activate” raises similar concerns at this publication, which believes that the public may share its thinking. This could lead to memory lapses, procedural errors in terms of timing and, it must be said, motives at suppressing truth. As a practical matter, it is appreciated that the equipment cannot be operative continuously, but the directions, as they stand, could negate the objectives on the drawing board.
Jan 08, 2025
The Telegraph – The England & Wales Cricket Board will meet with officials from the International Cricket Council at the end of January to discuss plans for a radical new two-tier system in...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- The Horse Racing Authority Bill of 2024, though ostensibly aimed at regulating horse racing... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- It has long been evident that the world’s richest nations, especially those responsible... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]