Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know there are threads on both of these topics; however, I believe the details of the homicide of Walter Scott are probably the absolute best real world example of why we need police body cameras.
Let me first start by saying that I was initially a bit skeptical of them, not against just not completely for them, due to the cost and bureaucracy involved. I was fearful they might turn into a logistical nightmare wasting resources, both money and police manpower. Following the shooting of Michael Brown, my view changed to more of a "it would be a good idea" stance.
After the shooting death (which I currently view as murder) of Walter Scott, I feel they need to be mandatory regardless of cost.
Let's just say the witness never caught the shooting on video. What would we have? We would have the following video from the dash cam:
It shows an officer that appears cool and collected just pulling over a man with a broken taillight. He approaches the car and follows procedure by touching the back and addresses the driver. He doesn't have his hand on his weapon or look provoked at all. When he talks to Mr. Scott he seemed very relaxed and even says "sir" to Mr. Scott twice. It looks like your run-of-the-mill stop where a cop was just going through the paces.
Suddenly Mr. Scott jumps out of the car and high tails it away. You can then hear the cop chasing after him while yelling to get on the ground. The audio starts dropping out, but it almost sounds as though you MAY hear a struggle.
Going by this, I'd immediately be giving the cop the benefit of the doubt. No, not because he's white and the suspect is black, but because of the video. The vast majority of people viewing that dash cam video would see a calm and collected cop and a man in a car with a story that he's going to buy it but doesn't have insurance or any paperwork who suddenly bolts for no apparent reason.
The question then goes to the eight shot fired with apparently 4 or 5 striking Mr. Scott in the back. If a defense lawyer were to tell me, sitting on the jury, that the first 3 or 4 shots were fired at Mr. Scott while he was facing the officer and in the process of attacking him before turning at the last moment, I may very well accept this as a reasonable possibility and come to the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to convict the cop and what really happened was more than likely the story the cop's defense attorney draws.
I would currently be saying, "We don't know for sure what happened, but I tend to believe the cop wasn't out to shoot someone that day and I just don't believe the cop can be convicted. The only person who seemed out of control that afternoon was Mr. Scott."
The second video proves, in my mind, that the officer is guilty of shooting a fleeing man in the back. Without that video, we would most likely see the officer either not indicted or found not guilty. I just don't think most people would believe that cop would, apparently, get so frustrated and mad in that instance that he would shoot a fleeing man who was not a threat at that time in the back pulling the trigger eight times.
We need police body cameras to increase the possibility of justice in these, what I believe to be rare, cases. It is worth the cost.
Has this event made others who might have been a bit wavering on body cameras stronger in the view that they should be used?
I've always thought that police should be wearing body camera's anytime they are interacting with a member of the general public. Its protection for both the general public and the police. In places where camera's have been used, use of force by police has consistently gone down, also complaints against police have gone WAY down.
Police are less likely to use force and to remain more composed, people are less likely to file BS complaints against police, everyone wins.
I don't know if these police shootings are more common now than they used to be, or if they are just receiving more media attention now. But the fact is that these deaths at the hands of LEO's (some questionable and some not) are going to force the use of body cameras. The majority of these incidents may be justifiable, but it only takes a few, like this one in SC, to raise doubt about any cops version of what happened. We have the technology, so why not use it. We have 'black boxes' in commercial aircraft for the same reason... to have a record of what happened, and they have greatly contributed to the general safety of flying by identifying problems that need to be corrected. I think the same could be said for police body cameras. It might be a good question to ponder, would this have happened the way it did if Slager had been wearing a body camera (?). Perhaps there would have been a different outcome.
I've always thought that police should be wearing body camera's anytime they are interacting with a member of the general public. Its protection for both the general public and the police. In places where camera's have been used, use of force by police has consistently gone down, also complaints against police have gone WAY down.
Police are less likely to use force and to remain more composed, people are less likely to file BS complaints against police, everyone wins.
A good example of this would the TV show 'Cops'. It's no surprise that the police officers are on their best behavior, because they know they're on camera.
Remember, these are not going to be million dollar high definition steady cams. The video will be blurry, jerky, and hard to make out. But, anything is better than nothing. I think the general public will be shocked to see the day to day crap officers have to deal with.
Remember, these are not going to be million dollar high definition steady cams. The video will be blurry, jerky, and hard to make out. But, anything is better than nothing. I think the general public will be shocked to see the day to day crap officers have to deal with.
I'd be willing to bet there will be times where video from one of these cameras will be interpreted completely opposite by those debating what was "seen", but I still think they will provide greater clarity in the majority of cases.
Plus, they seemed to work pretty good in "End Of Watch".
I fully support body cams and am glad my city uses them already.
Anymore, if I were a cop I'd WANT one so that I don't get accused of stuff I didn't do.
And as a citizen I'd want one on the police so that if we do get a bad cop on the force that they aren't hurting my fellow citizens (or me) and poisoning civic relationships on top of everything else AND costing me the taxpayer and my city millions in civil abuse suits.
So, quick question. Who comprises the major opposition to body cams?
While I am in favor of police body cameras, I don't think they are a complete solution. One of the major issues is the the officer essentially controls the camera - if they are going to do something dirty, they can turn it off, leave it in the car, cover the lens of accidentally loose it down the sewer afterwards. So they are a good tool for addressing baseless complaints about the police, but maybe not so much for addressing complaints with merit. There are some good examples of this in this article: Police Body Camera Policies Won't Work if Cops Don't Turn Cameras On - Bloomberg Business
A good example of this would the TV show 'Cops'. It's no surprise that the police officers are on their best behavior, because they know they're on camera.
It is interesting that you bring up the show "Cops" because year after year the show has proven that police officers can and do make arrest against all sorts of fleeing suspects without resorting to the kinds of excessive force that we are seeing these days. Now whether the show highlights represent the best officers in their respective departments (I highly doubt that the departments send these crews out with any officer than the best they have) or whether the presence of cameras serves as a break on more base instincts isn't important. What cops has show consistently is that excessive force is not necessary.
A good example of this would the TV show 'Cops'. It's no surprise that the police officers are on their best behavior, because they know they're on camera.
Here's an example where the use of a body cam probably saved the career of a police officer and saved his department a whole lot of money in a civil lawsuit.
The first segment shows the view from the dash cam which made the officer's actions seem questionable but the body cam view gives the full story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
