Police body cameras are superior solution
If you have taken a solid 30 seconds to watch the news on television any time between now and the last five years, you have realized that relations between police and civilians are in shambles. Any human wielding a cellular device with a camera has unwittingly been induced as a member of a blundering nationwide paparazzi.
The pseudo-paparazzi is the source of countless video accounts of so-called police misconduct. But when a video recorded off of a hand-held device suggests one thing while the officers involved in the case suggest another, whom do we trust? When it comes to something as vague as "trust," shouldn't we perhaps look to an alternate route? The answer is yes.
Equipping police officers with body cameras is simply the most effective fix to this problem. They eliminate the need to rely on trust on either party, while also improving accountability of both.
It has been proven time and time again through experimentation that equipping police officers with body cameras can and will improve police/civilian relations while simultaneously dropping the use of force by the officers on duty.
Let's get these cameras and fix some problems.
Trent Sims
***
Carrier deal has multiplier effect
Response to the Dec. 3 Baltimore Sun editorial "Trump Makes A Deal":
There is a lot of hand-wringing about the $7 million taxpayer incentives provided Carrier by the host state, Indiana.
Consider two things. One is that there is a 7 percent sales tax statewide in Indiana, as well as a 3.3 percent state income tax. The reported salaries for the jobs saved is $68 million. If just one third of the salaries is taxed at the going rate, the incentive will be recouped in about three years.
Secondly, if the $68 million had left with the jobs, what would have been the consequences? The tax collections would be zero, or as some would claim, lost revenue! What would have been the cost to the state for 1,000 individuals unemployed? Unemployment, food stamps and more should be considered in the total cost had the deal not gone through.
Perhaps taxes are too high to begin with, forcing companies to look elsewhere. As far as Joe and Jane average taxpayer, what would they say about losing $68 million in sales to the local area?
Remember the multiplier effect.
Jack N. Callahan, Cleveland, Tenn.