Consider:

Jeff Roorda is, amongst other jobs, the Business Manager for the St. Louis Police Association. In 2013, he opined that the St. Louis Metro Police Department needed to equip patrol cars with shotguns and, possible, AR-15 rifles. This was to make sure that the officers had “the right options when they’re deploying lethal or less than lethal force[.]”

This year, the same Jeff Roorda objected to a plan by which the officer of the STLMPD would be equipped with cameras that would record their investigations and interactions.

A camera protects the public (by ensuring that the officer is acting appropriately), and it protects the officer (from claims of bias or excessive force). It records any incident and investigation. It can pick up things that that the human eye misses.

A shotgun or a rifle has only one use, flinging hot, deadly lead at a target. Although Mr. Roorda seems to believe his officers can deploy long arms for less than lethal purposes, typically that would not be the case.

So, based on what Mr. Roorda supports, where do you think his priorities lie. What is more important to him, and, by implication, to the Association he represents. The truth, captured by a camera, or the ability to deploy lethal force?