Kelly Weill wrote an article about an even that changed many perspectives on the opinion of these police body cameras. A couple months ago there was suspicion going around that a police officer intentionally turned his body camera off. A Baltimore cop and his partner were searching through a car for drugs after arresting two men for supposed "Possession of drugs." They were looking through the car for awhile and out of nowhere the body cameras shut off. About 30 minutes later the camera turned back on. It shows one of the officers squatting down next to the car looking at the drugs that were sat in the driver's seat. There was court session and there was not enough information to determine a final ruling. Later a public defender showed more evidence. It showed that two weeks before the incident there was video of a cop planting a bag of pills in a parking lot and two other cops searching for the pills to use as "more evidence". Do you think that the cops are guilty or was it just a camera malfunction?
On September 14, 2017 two writers Tina Moore and Max Jaeger of a journalist company, The New York Post released the first ever video recorded shooting from the Nypd. NYPD shot and killed Miguel Antonio Richards in his apartment. Officers Mark Fleming and Redmond Murphy were sent to Richard's home when his landlord told police Richards was acting "erratically". The two officers try to convince Richards to put the knife in his left down and to show what he had behind his back in his right hand. He did not listen. Even his neighbor (most likely his friend) was yelling at him through the wall saying “Drop the knife, man. They don’t want to hurt you. I’m begging you, brother. There’s someone you’ve gotta love. You can get help, brother.” This neighbor even goes to the point of calling someone Richards knew to try to get him to cooperate with the police. It still did not work. After couple more minutes of trying to convince Richards to drop the knife and show what was in his right hand, he pulled out a plastic gun. The cops thought it was a real gun and started to open fire. Richards died on the spot.
In 2014 mayor Marty Walsh of Boston was not exactly a fan of these police body cameras. He later started to "warm up to them" once he realized how useful they could be. He said that he didn't really want to get involved in using them until there was an "incident" that happened and we would need video evidence. A year and a half later the BPD launched a pilot program. This was kind of like a test run to see what it would be like to use the body cameras. Boston Police Patrolmen's Association took Walsh and Commissioner William Evans to court to try to kill the program. The ruling was that the program should go on for one more year. The Boston Police Department had an argument with Walsh as Walsh cut the program short and wanted to wait 9 months before we started to use the cameras again. Do you think it's fair to stop the BPD from using the body cameras?
People argue that police departments need to start getting body cameras as soon as possible. People are saying this because they believe that police officers tend use more violence without these body cameras on then if they did have them on. Although police departments do support police worn body cameras, officers argue that these men and women are just as likely to use as much violence with the cameras than without. Of Course some officers will try to take advantage of the fact that they don't have the body cameras yet, but that does not mean all officers will do the same. I most believe cops will have the discipline to not take advantage of the freedom some cops have. Do you believe that cops really use the same amount of violence on and off the body cameras?
Arguments show two different sides about Police worn Body Cameras. Some people say that they are very good and will be a very useful source of evidence. Other people think that these cameras are useless because you do not get a clear sight of what is going on. These cameras will finally give courts and police officers evidence to look over to see the full story behind something might just be the verdict to solve a case. But, does it really show the full story? Although it does show video, the field of view is so small and the way you attach it is pretty loose. This makes it hard to see as many things as you would actually looking at it with your eyes. This also makes it very hard to see things if there is any movement involved. There will always be two sides of a story but do you think that these body cameras are a good source of information?
There has been multiple officer involved shootings. The Washington Police Department regulated to use body cameras as they thought that these body cameras would force officers to change their behaviors. On the contrary, study shows that these cameras had almost no effect on officer behavior. An 18-month study conveyed this conclusion that was placed on 2,000 plus officers. Some arguments state that we never should have invested more than $40 million dollars over something that was based off of hope. “these results suggest we should recalibrate our expectations for body cameras to lead to large-scale behavioral change in policing." The authors of the study cautioned. Although others argue that it was a great idea to introduce these body cameras. Statistically we see no difference in the amount of violence police officers use, but if you look at each individual one, you can see that they are afraid to use as much violence as they used to in the fear of getting caught doing something inhuman. Studies just like this all around the nation conveyed the same termination. Police officers use the same amount of violence with and without the cameras. Although it is not the exact same amount and the studies had different amounts of people to do the study on but in it all, there has been no documented change. Do you take the side of the police officers who say that there is no change to the amount of violence or the side of the victims that believe that the change is very vivid?