Should Shultz have engaged his lapel camera?

APD Chief Ray Schultz requires his subordinates to turn on their lapel cameras whenever they interact with the public; like for instance when they are arresting a drunk driver in the process of running over (the toes of) parade watchers, link.

His policy recognizes there are circumstances that make it impossible or imprudent to be trying to turn a camera, during especially fast developing situations, for example.

But, just because the camera cannot be turned on immediately, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be turned on eventually. Apparently, of all the officers involved in the incident, including the Chief and a Deputy Chief, no one turned on their camera ever.

An APD spokesperson reported;

“The chief had a whistle in his mouth. With his left hand, (he was) trying to control the segway, and on his right hand, (he) was trying to open the door.”

“He had no free hand to engage the camera, and there was a lot of dynamics involved. It was happening so fast and so quickly that there wasn’t enough time to afford him the opportunity to engage his camera. The same goes for the deputy chief as well.”

Couldn't the same excuse be made for nearly any police officer in any situation? At some point, there is time to turn the camera on.

Is there any excuse for never turning on the lapel cam?

If you're an officer in the APD there is;

"... just following the example set by the Chiefs."

photo Mark Bralley