Police to charge for the bullets they shoot at you! (Not really, at least not yet).
- Brian S. Collier
- Jul 30
- 7 min read
Police to charge for the bullets they shoot at you! (Not really, at least not yet).
by
Brian S Collier, Ph.D.
I grew up in South Bend, Indiana, and went to South Bend public schools. When I returned to live in the area as an adult, my first choice of places to live was in the city of South Bend. I hoped that my children would get to attend South Bend public schools, too, because I learned so many good things in my time in these institutions, especially about civics and civic responsibility.
Watching the Common Council meeting from July 28, 2025, where issue 43-25 on the city increasing charges for access by the public, and others to obtain police body camera footage, is part of that civic responsibility to me because I am against this idea. I think it disproportionately harms poor people. It’s a tax on a service we’re already taxed for and property that we’re already taxed on (the body cameras). I have other doubts about charging more for this footage, too.
That said, I was severely disappointed to hear that our police chief, Scott Ruzkowski, and assistant city attorney, Kylie Connell, chose not to provide information to our Common Council members, instead advocating for a position that was poorly presented, if truth be told.
In fairness, it’s hard to separate personal political opinions and ideologies from our public responsibilities, that said, when professionals are called to testify before the Common Council or any government entity, the expectation needs to be that they’re acting to provide clear and transparent information to the elected officials so that those who are elected can make the best possible decisions.
So much of politics at our national and local levels is about ‘winning’ rather than teaching or informing, and that is what we saw Ms. Connell and Mr. Ruzkowski trying to do. I understand this from Ruzkowski as he’s launched an exploratory campaign for a possible run at St. Joseph County Sheriff, but that still doesn’t give him a right to advocate when he is testifying in his official capacity – that said, I don’t entirely blame these two as our nation as a whole is working to ‘win’ an ideology, rather than to be better informed and that is what is perhaps hurting us all the most.
A great example of the ‘trying to win’ mentality came when the discussion of Artificial Intelligence arose. When Council members suggested that some of the work of redacting the videos might be done by Artificial Intelligence (AI), those answering questions (either Connell or Ruzkowski) said there was crucial information and alluded to Chat GPT, showing an absolute arrogance or ignorance, possibly both. Chat GPT for this kind of work would be like using tears to put out a fire instead of the fire hose sitting next to you. It’s fine that regular citizens do not know much about AI just yet, but it’s embarrassing for city officials to espouse this kind of nonsense off the cuff, when they’ve been asked to testify to help lawmakers make laws. This isn’t about voting on which restaurant to eat out with your friends; this bill has significant implications for our community, and it is offensive for these paid city employees to suggest nonsense. Google Maps utilizes the same AI technology used to remove license plates from Street View and faces from other images and has done so for over a decade. Moreover, there is now better AI available than when this technology was first developed. At one point, city employees suggested that AI couldn’t do what humans do and would make mistakes. Part of that is true, AI would make mistakes, but way fewer per incident than humans at this point and any mistakes made could be utilized to add to the AI training so that exact error would never occur again, people doing this work might make the same mistake again, AI would come close to not ever replicating the same error, at least in the same circumstance. If cost savings are at the heart of this discussion, as some in government, including Mayor Mueller, suggest, AI replacing part of the workload is ideal. This is logical and true, but the answers given indicate that it was not considered with openness, transparency, or actual research; instead, it was off-the-cuff, guff from city employees paid to answer questions for the Common Council members.
Connell suggested that the public should pay the new and inflated rates for body camera footage by comparing the footage to police cars – she suggested that just because the public owns the police cars does not mean they get to take them to the grocery store – this is clear notice that she forgets that the cameras were put into place to help ‘serve and protect’ the community, which certainly includes our hardworking officers, but also should include the public as an equal entity.
Connell putting this terrible false equivalency out there in the world made me wonder if the LSAT still includes logical equivalencies such as bark is to trees as flesh is to: a) skin, b) roots, c) toenails, or d) mammals. Yes, equivalencies are never exact, but you have to choose the best answer – maybe the LSAT does not do those any longer – but when we make patently false equivalencies, then we knowingly attempt to deceive or ‘win’ rather than inform or teach. There should be ‘contempt’ kinds of charges from the public or its representatives against public officials who do this. She’s paid a salary that exceeds that of three new schoolteachers with advanced degrees in our community, so we want her to know her stuff – and she fell down on the job this time.
A more appropriate equivalency might have been to suggest that if we’re going to charge up to $150 per body camera request that we should also start charging people up to $150 for their ride in a squad car to be booked (whether or not they end up being proven guilty or innocent), that would be her police car equivalency.
Perhaps we could charge the accused more if they want the air-conditioning on for the ride? Or give them an option to share a POLICE CAR BLACK, where they might wait a little longer, but share the ride with others going downtown at the same time.
I guess by the logic that the Police Chief and Assistant Attorney are putting out there, that citizens should also have to pay for bullets that they’re shot with again, whether or not they’re shot legally. Maybe they could get a discount on the bullets fired, but that did not actually hit them under some target practice exemption, they could split those that missed with police training budgets.
Could the City’s attorney clarify for me if rubber bullets are more or less expensive? Can I request which I prefer to be shot with in particular instances?
Perhaps the fire department could install water meters on their hoses to track the amount of water used to extinguish fires. They could charge for the water and the mileage on the trucks!
Will I be charged for both the electricity I’m tazed with and a ‘re-stocking fee’ to put the wiring back in the taser, or is it a ‘per taze’ fee with a $150 maximum?
If I’m accused of a crime and receive a single phone call, and my mom still has an old 219 area code landline, do I get charged the long-distance fees?
Should my neighbor, who walks at Howard Park every day, have to pay more taxes than I because I go only a couple of times a week?
Will there be a comprehensive guide to à la carte public services? Can we charge people who live in Granger but come to South Bend to watch fireworks or use our roads a higher access fee than residents? Can we charge ‘non-resident’ use fees for when visitors to Notre Dame games need South Bend police assistance?
Can I get a discount if I combine some city services? Can I opt out of others?
While suggesting these things, I can hear my 6th grade teacher at Jefferson Elementary School, an immigrant named Ms. Joyce Boller, if she’s still alive, saying, ‘Reductio ad absurdum, Collier. Absurdum!’ She probably would make me rewrite the whole piece and ask that it be shorter, too (she would also chide me for having any parenthetical remarks or sentences ending with prepositions).
At the heart of 43-25, it was clear from listening to the testimony by paid city employees that there is a personnel issue and that the city needs to hire a videographer or film major or the like to do the redactions and then pass versions through an attorney if necessary. It was also clear that the city attorney and the police chief seemed to conflate the less than 200 requests this year from the public with work that is being done on behalf of the police themselves. The police should cover the cost of their version from their budget and request the necessary budget appropriations to facilitate this, not a notable change in local law. Currently, the city should absorb the costs, which amount to less than 0.5% of the city budget, to ensure citizens have equal access to footage that can help serve and protect all those who live and work in our community.
Thanks to those Common Council members who thought to ask questions of those bringing this bill forward, from the offices of Mayor Mueller and the police chief. Thanks to those who remember that these council members are an equal branch of government, and thanks to all of those who work towards the good of the whole in our community. We cannot play with the ‘and justice for all’ portion of our core beliefs by just advocating for individual or political wins, as ultimately, wins are meaningless, because this is not a game.
© 2025 Brian S Collier. All opinions are those of the author. The author reserves all Rights and copyrights. To request permission to reprint any or all of this article, contact info@redresssouthbend.com.
Reprinted with permission of the author by Redress South Bend.
All opinions and views in this piece are attributed to the author and are not necessarily the thoughts or opinions of Redress South Bend.