Motorcycle Rider Suicide

The second reason why law enforcement should not be involved in high speed chases is because they sometimes they are unnecessary. For example, it is not necessary to chase someone who ran a red light, stop sign, or failed to turn on their signal light before turning into another lane. It is not worth risking a police officer 's, drivers, or innocent bystanders life over a minor offense. The Washington Post states ”Ninety one percent of high-speed chases are initiated in response to a non-violent crime, according to a fascinating report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Institute of Justice. They analyzed nearly 8,000 high-speed chases in the IACP 's database. What they found was that the overwhelming majority of pursuits -- 91 percent of them -- were not initiated in response to a violent crime. Most -- 42 percent -- involved a simple traffic infraction. Another 18 percent involved a stolen vehicle. 15 percent involved a suspected drunk driver.” There are certain

The incident, then, was a clear instance of the broader problem of police brutality and how police fail to use discretion with force.

Over the last few years, many citizens across the country have been stepping up and voicing their opinions of police brutality. Thanks to many recent amateur videos, there are many cases where I feel police could have handled situations differently. It is important that police should use lethal force only as a last resort. When there are no laws enforced on the people who enforce them, total anarchy can

Some examples of the raw footage being released into the public can cause problems. One such case is Michael Bennet at the Mayweather vs. Mcgregor fight where there were falsely reported gunshots and Michael was running out of the building when police stopped and was detained for 17 minutes. He seen as running from the cops so they considered him suspicious and was detained. There were false accusations before the footage was released and the case was closed with no one being arrested or hurt (Chiari). Another such case is with officer Anthony Cano who came up to a wrecked car on the side of the road. When he searched the vehicle some one was inside and he seemed suspicious and the officer asked

Video Footage has the potential to expose officer misconduct and exonerate civilians whose actions have been falsely accused by officers. In the case of John Crawford III, going into his local Walmart, just wanting to spend quality time with his family roasting s’mores. Officers had over 200 video cameras showing he wasn’t doing anything wrong, but they refused to look at them. Even though he had an unloaded pellet gun that he picked up off the shelf. Why shoot, instead of tasering him. (Harvard Law Review N.A., 2015). Even with some witnesses around that still didn’t stop New York Police officers from using excessive force on Eric Garner. His death was recorded, and the officers were indicted. There are many cases where officers are accused of excessive force such as PEOPLE vs ATKINSON. In cases such as this, there are officers stating force was necessary and defendants saying that unnecessary force had been used. The use of cameras helps to determine without prejudice and protect all

In the past years there have been a multitude of cases of police brutality where the officer and the victim plead two different things. One of the most notable one of this decade is the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri. The shooting of Michael Brown happened in 2014 where a Ferguson police officer fired twelve shots at an unarmed Michael Brown. Witnesses have said many different things about what Brown was doing with his hands as he approached the officer. This killing created unrest in Ferguson and many riots followed in support of Brown. If the officer had a body camera we could see exactly what Brown was doing, whether he was surrendering or reaching for a weapon. This may have prevented the riots and gave solid evidence to prove who was the culprit in the case. Many more incidents like this have happened, but this one has been the more talked about in the

There has been a lot of talk lately in the news about police body cameras. Some people agree that body cameras should be used by all police officers, while others disagree and believe that they shouldn’t be used at all. There are some cons to having body cameras but all of the pros outweigh it. Police body cameras should be used in all towns no matter how small because the people will act less aggressive towards officers, they provide truthful evidence that cannot be altered with, and the videos can be stored so if something were to happen, they could be brought up and checked as sort of like a surveillance device.

While racing down the freeway on March 3, 1991, driver Rodney King and friends were leading the Los Angeles Police Department on a high speed chase making it up to 115 miles per hour. When King was eventually caught, officers pulled him from his car and began to beat King with their batons hitting and kicking him more than 50 times and shocking him with stun guns in a period of two minutes as he struggled helplessly on the ground outside of his car. King suffered 11 skull fractures, kidney damage, and brain damage. This was one of America’s first viral video of what excessive force is, and it changed the way police interacted with communities forever. The use of police force is an obligation, but unfortunately some officers may misuse, or abuse

In the aftermath of the Rodney king beating a lot of things changed with police on the field. “In the wake of the Rodney king case; cameras became standard equipment in patrol cars all over the nation” (Marcou). In doing this police now cannot cover up an incident that they were a part of. “As far as citizens recording police, there is still much disagreement about how it should be handled” (Marcou). Nowhere in the constitution does it say the citizens cannot film stuff that is happening outside their house. “When it comes to training, officers are told “have your camera going at all times. A professional police officer has nothing to fear from being recorded and always act as if you are being recorded, because in today’s world you probably are” (Marcou). Thanks to cases like Rodney Kings, law enforcement is much more aware of misuse of force in the field.

In reality, the basic truth is that we as a society would whole-heartedly like to believe that seeing video footage of a high risk incident, such as an officer involved‐shooting, would somehow tell the whole story in regards to what happened and how, and that

Bystanders often film police interactions and sometimes catch police officers acting in ways that look incriminating. The problem with this is that most of the time, there is no context and people watching the video do not know what the circumstances behind the video were. Implementing body cameras would prevent any misunderstandings that could harm the police officers. To support this, the article “Police Body Cameras Offer Protection For All” writes, “Moreover, when a citizen cellphone video involving police activity surfaces, it may or may not show how the situation unfolded from the moment police arrived on the scene. It's in the best interest of law enforcement to have video documentation of its own that might bring extenuating circumstances to light.” This will prevent false accusations and help protect the jobs of police officers

But it will be showing the evidence of the individual and how everything was going at that time during the arrest. Coverage of a widely publicized police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri was one of the incidents where a police officer in activity was put to question some say the shooting was justified some say it was not till Body-monitor cameras will eliminate any either side would have but to

Body cameras have been created and can now help solve this problem. For example, society has seen police brutality as a misuse of authority and is wanting a change. So by having police wear a body camera, it can help show who was in the wrong. By using body-worn cameras, now there are specific details and evidence of everything that happened during the incident “The objective of body cameras is to deliver an accurate record of officer engagements for complete situational awareness and tamper-proof digital evidence.” (“Should Police Officers Wear Body Cameras”). The goal is that there is hard evidence, even when there is not always a third party witness around. With these body cameras, there will no longer be any need to depend on what the police or citizens have to say about what happened during the incident because there is clarification in the evidence of what went on and what was

The argument holds that they are for the safety of the suspect and for the officer. Body cams will allow for the department to look back at any reported incidents, and make sure that the citizen are given their right and that no foul play was involved. Body cams have been used before to go over unfortunate fatal cases of officers having to pull out their weapons. Many believe mandating body cam will, hopefully, diminish the number of individuals dying in police custody.

Some officers abuse their power and don’t know how to stop, this can lead to injuries or might even death. A video was found on Facebook and it showed a man in pittsburg getting his head slammed to the pavement repeatedly by an officer. This demonstrates that some officers don’t know when to stop. There had been another incident in Cleveland when the victim was brutally beaten by the police officer. The victim's name is Richard Hubbard III and what he did against the law was miss a street sign while driving. And there is a video of him getting brutally beaten up.