Some law-enforcement leaders argue that police should wear lapel cameras so investigators looking into violent clashes can assess the viewpoint from the officer’s perspective.

In the wake of the Sammy Yatim case, the head of the Toronto Police Association says he supports having that discussion. Just not yet.

“Let’s wait until the investigation is complete and let’s have that discussion then,” Mike McCormack told the Star on Wednesday. “Until then, it’s premature to have that conversation.”

If Const. James Forcillo had a video camera on his lapel, would there be a more detailed and accurate account of the shooting death of the 18-year-old Yatim from his perspective?

In the wake of the citizen video capturing Forcillo firing nine shots at Yatim, public reaction has been hostile, though the officer has not been charged with any crime, and the investigation by the Special Investigations Unit is still fresh.

McCormack said an overwhelming majority of Toronto officers are opposed to wearing video cameras, even though U.S. police forces are moving in this direction.

He said he believes resources should be directed toward “boots on the ground” instead of technology like lapel cameras.

Two months ago, he said police already had sufficient accountability.

“We don’t think it protects officers any more against complaints, or protects the officers any more in gathering evidence in what they do,” he said at the time.

McCormack was reacting to comments made by Gerry McNeilly, head of the investigative body that reviewed police conduct at the G20 summit in Toronto in 2010.

McNeilly, who leads the Office of the Independent Review Director (OIPRD), told the Star in May that lapel cameras would provide valuable evidence outside of any video shot by the public.

At the G20 summit, McNeilly’s office received video from people at the protest, “but that was one view,” he said.

He said video cameras worn by police could present a more detailed and accurate account of a violent clash with the public.

“We didn’t get a perspective from the police officers themselves,” McNeilly said of the G20 summit.

“If they had lapel cameras, we would have been able to see some of the allegations that I had to deal with later to try to verify them, like projectiles being thrown at police, police being spat (upon) and urine being thrown at them.”

McNeilly’s viewpoint has the support from the head of the Special Investigations Unit, which is investigating the Yatim case.

Ian Scott, who heads the SIU, told the Star “the more video, the better. It may not be determinative but it’s often a great fact-finding tool.”

He said lapel cameras are “a good idea in my view.”

The former head of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, Stephen Tanner, also said video is the best way to capture evidence.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

If police had their own cameras, investigations would be more complete so “it doesn’t become one person’s word or version of events.”

Tanner, who is chief of the Halton Region police, said a number of police chiefs have been exploring this technology, but costs could amount to $2,000 per officer.

Police departments in Albuquerque, N.M., Denver, Oakland and Iowa are either testing or using lapel cameras.

Read more about: