So no citations?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine."; "Don't be curmudgeonly."

FWIW, with a foothold in both domains, this is quite similar to a cop forum poster dismissing all conversation on CVEs until they get a citation on whether or not SWEs like memory safe languages. It's asking for research, when it can only be afforded an opinion poll, and the issue is too complex to boil down to "yes" or "no" - i.e. some "no"s may reveal the underbelly of dislikable cops, some "no"s may reveal it causes them to lack discretion in enforcement due to an over-zealous manager.

I don't agree with your assertion of numerous incidents where we see police prevent recording, but understand generally you're handwaving at some stuff you saw some time, and that there's certainly > 0 of those incidents, and don't see a need to halt conversation until you provide a citation / not an anecdote.

	▲	infecto 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That’s not snarky. I am asking for evidence based on the original comment that police like wearing comments. My own anecdotes differ but they are of course anecdotes. Asking for citations is neither snarky nor worth of posting a rules link. You seem to be misreading what I said. I am pointing out that what I have are anecdotes and I would love to have some real data instead of folks just claiming what police like or dislike. I am sorry you feel the need to be slightly rude in your response too. Again I am not hand waving but simply saying it’s hard to believe cops like wearing them but I have no idea what they feel and I would love data instead of folks expressing ideas. Unions highly opposed the rollout of cameras and I know in the biased selection of videos we see, conversation is often muted. Sorry my post confused you, I am not claiming to know either way!