Post Incident Analysis

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 today 's society, one highly debatable topic is whether or not law enforcement agents should wear body cameras. Most cameras used by law enforcement agencies across the country record audio and video, therefore, the cameras see and hear nearly everything a law enforcement officer does. There are many advantages to law enforcement personnel using body cameras while on duty because it holds the officers accountable, is used to document the contact made between the officers and the victims and/or suspects, supports the “use of force” action, keeps the officers and citizens honest, and the videos can even be used for training for other officers.

Police officers should have to be required to wear body cameras to ensure the safety of the citizens and to provide evidence for a court case. Many times the police have gotten away with too many things and commit crimes that go unnoticed It’s time we put a stop to that and we make a change. With the use of body cameras that police force would be more trustworthy, they wouldn’t commit crimes, and they would be able to supply the court with undisputable evidence.

To peep or not to peep, that is the question being asked by many regarding police body cameras in communities. The topic of police brutality is a rising issue in today’s society. Several questions have arose over the use of police body cameras and whether they are a good or bad idea. Police body cameras have has a variety of concern to many communities regarding their potential. Every city has a different trust and relationship for their police force and these concerns vary depending on the community. People have the concern regarding privacy, protection, and impact on the community and more. After researching the problems caused by Police body cameras as well as its background, the current state of the issue, and the potential solutions, it is clear that communities need to bring a solution to this situation.Such as laws, policies, rules, and more to control this new information.

Body cameras in policing are still new, but more and more agencies are beginning to implement this technology into their line of work. At first police officers were very hesitant to wear these body cameras because they were afraid they would infringe themselves and give away their own privacy. Later, as body cameras were beginning to see more use in the work place, officers began to realize that these very own body cameras that they once thought would only cause themselves harm would actual prove to be useful in a variety of situations. Some of these situations can be citizen complaints, to even backing up an officers use of force. Body cameras can be the one sole thing that can give

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.

Historically speaking, authorities of the law were never in a position where their professional duties and their character as a public servant of the law were demeaned in a way that there needs to be constant surveillance of them and the people whom they come into contact with. There was never a need of documenting every encounter you had with a civilian before. In this day in age, things have certainly changed, and the past has always been something society likes to change and make better even if it raises concerns. Due to all the violent police stories that has surfaced in the past decade, the idea of having police officers wear video cameras as a part of their uniform while on duty has resulted in a radically divergent account of society’s future. The law may uphold cops to wear cameras while working, but is this really the best decision? This topic is very controversial and may create issues with cops and the civilians they try and protect in the future.

a) In a 2012 study, it was found that officers that were required to wear cameras while on the job were more cautious and their use of excessive force fell by 60 percent, while public complaints dropped by 88 percent. (Rory Carroll, 2013)

Law enforcement should always be concerned with the public trust they operate with. Officers are neighbors and regular people just like the rest of the community. Allowing a record of their actions not only gives them protection from false claims it also can keep people from overreacting in situations. Studies have shown that both officers and citizens both are more likely to remain calm in a situation where everyone knows they were being recorded beforehand (Spivak).

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

Despite the fact that body camera footage provides wonderful evidence for courts, there are concerns that the courts may come to depend so much on video footage that testimonies are ignored (Considering Police Body Cameras 1803). Although this is a good concern, it can be remedied by having the courts view footage from body cameras after the testimonies are given, or as a last resort to settle a case. This would make courts listen to the testimonies, and as a result, not ignore them. This would also give the witnesses a chance to give their side of the story, and possibly shed light on body camera footage, if it is viewed.

One potential problem lies in the ability to tamper with the recording equipment. If an officer has access to turn the camera on and off, the potential exists to essentially “edit out” unwanted portions of the encounter by turning the camera off. The same holds true for cell phones. With the ability to edit videos online, a person that wishes to show the “victim” in the most positive light edits out anything that would throw a negative light on the victim’s actions. Also, the angle of the video can vastly affect the perception of the viewer. How many times has a video surfaced in the media depicting the negative aspects of an encounter? Then, at a later date, a complete copy of the video or a video from a different angle surfaces and reveals that what was originally thought to be an episode of unwarranted use of force turns out to be a volatile encounter where the officer’s safety was at risk. Additionally, when the media highlights negative videos of police encounters, it raises citizens’ distrust of officers in general, regardless as to whether their local department was involved or not. This increased level of distrust, particularly in minority communities, can serve to heighten an officer’s unease about entering the community, even when responding to a call for service. This distrust increases tension between the officer and the community which can

If I was involved in a domestic situation and I was the victim I would want the scene to be videoed because I know the evidence would help me in court and it would show that the officers have done their job correctly. If I was the offender I would not want the scene videoed because I would not want the tape to go to court to incriminate