Police Body Cameras, also known as Body Worn Videos, have been central in a heated debate surrounding an aggressive and increasingly militarized police force, that through misconduct and controversy has lost the trust of the American people. These body cameras have the ability to rebuild this trust by providing accountability and training to the officers as well as crucial evidence for the courts. In the summer of 2014 a young man by the name of Michael Brown was shot down while fleeing arrest in Ferguson, Mo. The police officer, Darren Wilson, would not stand trial for his actions due to conflicting testimony and a lack of evidence against him. This case became the perfect example of why these cameras are necessary, the footage obtained from …show more content…
The first thing to consider is that cameras do not eliminate bias and multiple interpretations of the footage based on the viewer. As the footage will only show the situation from the first person viewpoint of the officer leading to a specific framing of the event. This could become a major concern during court trials considering that reliance on video recordings for evidence will greatly increase as body cameras become more standard in the police force. This will create a need for a documented chain of custody and secure storing for possibly hundreds of hours of footage recorded daily. That will need to be sorted, saved, or deleted as necessary. Possibly infringing on the public's expectation of privacy. We expect to be watched by security cameras while out on the street or in a business but not in our homes. With officers routinely entering private residences for domestic disputes or otherwise inconsequential visits the footage should be deleted promptly once deemed not of use. This access allows however allows for the footage to be manipulated if the officers are given the ability to turn off and on the cameras as they like they can easily frame a situation in their favor. Body cameras have the ability to become both an important training tool as well as a potential constitutional
The case in New Mexico is proof that body cameras should be used because it showed that there were false claims of sexual misconduct against the police officer who pulled over an intoxicated woman. The officer’s camera showed the moment the woman quickly slipped her phone into her shirt when the officer wasn’t looking and later at the station
Yes these cameras would make solving issues in cases much easier, but there are many who think this is a violation of their privacy to have an officer with a camera entering their house or looking into their car. It is understandable that someone would not want a rolling camera seeing into their home, but the ability to prove innocence or guilt in a court case should more than outweigh this temporary invasion. If someone is accused of something and the option of having a camera that could prove or revoke the accusation, or having no evidence to prove anything, which should be chosen? Should police officers carry body cameras? If so, should there be restrictions on when and where they can be used?
Police body camera video will provide a court with the view that legally matters. This footage also shows the public what the officer saw and heard to understand the officer’s actions. Therefore, putting the public in the officer’s position and giving them the situation on hand to determine whether the actions taken were rational. The body camera can ensure that the public does not see only the confrontational piece of the encounter that may only be captured on a cellphone. With the use of body cameras, the entire interaction should be recorded so that the focus is not only on the final frame of the incident, and the reviewing court of the matter and the public will be able to see the actions leading up to the confrontational part of the
The use of a body camera is very important in many different instances such as recording a crime, making a statement about an event that just occurred, or as evidence against suspects. By publishing the recorded video to the public, it could potentially violate personal privacy; keeping it private raises concerns about the deceitfulness of the police ("Police Cameras"). This is why body cameras are extremely controversial in our society. Even though body cameras can potentially seem like an invasion of privacy to the public, they can help with clarifying evidence and showing the humane side of the police force. Body cameras are a vital piece of equipment for law enforcement and play an essential
Police worn body cameras are a very big part of policing now, they are increasingly being shown on the media to show that police are attempting to improve the relationships between the public and police. Police body cameras have been and will continue to be a controversial topic in policing because of the issues with privacy laws and how everyone stopped by police will be recorded. In this paper, it will discuss more in depth about the positives and negatives of police worn body cameras and a conclusion from the evidence collected. The use of body cameras in policing has been around since the early 2000’s, but as of late police body cameras have become increasingly implemented over the last couple years, but these
Shooting of Walter Scott occurred on April 4, 2015, in South Carolina. Walter Scott was shot by Michael Slager, a police officer. The police officer was charged with murder after a video contracted the police officer’s report. Which the video showed him shooting the unarmed man from behind. Thanks to the video, justice was made.
By being conscious of their every move being watched, officers will be careful not to make any obscene choices when on duty. The cameras will be beneficial to both the officers, and the public as they take careful measures to make good
One of the more widely renowned cases in which a body camera would have been useful is the case of Michal Slager. Slager is a former police officer of South Carolina. The reason that it’s important to put emphasis on the word “former” is that he was recently involved in a murder trial. Slager had shot a black man named Walter Scott. Slager’s justification for shooting Scott was that Scott had stolen his taser and had attempted to attack Slager with it.
These body cameras are an invasion of privacy to these victims caught on camera. People in the U.S as Americans have a right to privacy as stated in the 4th amendment, these body cameras are invasion to their privacy by placing the videos from the camera on Youtube or online. It is true, that these cameras are a violation of privacy and it breaking our amendment however, the police departments will work with victims so the videos will not be released, the department of police can ask permission to release the videos or at least sign a consent form to put it out. Victims on camera can ask ask cops to turn off the cameras at any time. At the end of the day they do have choice, therefore body cameras should be permitted in police
First, they shouldn’t wear body cameras because it raises high privacy concerns. For example, “Recordings raise high privacy concerns. In some states, anyone can access the video.” (Should Police Wear Body Cameras, pg.23) Also, “Study Reveals Police Officer Are More Likely To Be Assaulted.”
Now there is two possible outcomes, there was police misconduct and abuse of power, or the police officer did everything correctly and by the book. Either way there needs to be something that can protect the public from police misconduct and also protect law enforcement from dealing with false accusations that can tarnish their reputation. That is why body worn cameras need to be mandatory for all police officers to wear because it protects the public and the police officers that are wearing them. A couple positive outcomes police officers wearing body cameras is how they can lower police officers misuse of authority and also lower false complaints against officers as well. These are two
From interactions on the street to testifying in open court, an officer’s word is everything. Once that credibility is gone it is almost impossible for that officer to continue in a law enforcement capacity. Body cameras have emerged as a potential solution to the evolving discussion around police trust and legitimacy issues. One benefit of having a body camera is that if a critical incident, officer involved shooting, or accusation of brutality arises, the camera will provide footage from the officer’s point of view that
Many have suggested that body cams should be used by police everywhere. In my opinion, I believe that the body cams will help protect people. In so many headlines in the news today, a reporter writes about a fatal tragedy involving a cop and an unarmed person. If body cameras were available in that time, then it would have been different. I believe that having the camera on them, a police officer will think twice before firing his weapon at someone.
For the past couple years there has been many injustice cases involving poor accusations of innocent victims. These poor accusations of innocent victims include shootings of innocent African Americans. One way to avoid these problems is the use of body cams. These tiny cameras have saved a Police Officer 's job, justified an innocent victim, and even has saved a person 's life. Recently Police Departments have been using these such body cameras and have seen significant results.
Speech Outline Title: Body Cameras I. Introduction Attention-getter: Body cameras were used because of Michael Brown’s death and police misconduct. B. Significance Body cameras may increase police accountability and protect them from accusations. C. Credibility: My interest in this topic is due to the latest deadly encounters with police officers and improving the communities’ safety.