In the article by USA TODAY, David Jackson the author wanted to inform what the Obama Administration and the white house have made efforts towards the topic of police body cameras. Jackson starts off by explaining how the Obama Administration recorded data to test the effectiveness of these cameras. Jackson writes that soon after The Justice Department-funded $20 million to serve the cause. After this, the article explains that White House Josh Earnest will also fund 50,000 body cameras and run tests to see how effective they are. Many other White House connections are funding the movement with either money or data.
This article, written by Kendall Breitman, it talks about how the White House has been involved in the topic of police wearing body cams. It starts off talking about how the White House mainly got involved when the unarmed teen died in Ferguson, Missouri. When a petition was signed almost 160,000 times the White House sprung into action. Breitman then talks about how the White House collected data to find the best solution and the best cameras.
This article was made unbiased and the author, Brandon Griggs from CNN, wanted to just inform people about all that was happening on this topic. Griggs starts off by talking about the fatal shooting of Michael Brown and how all the witnesses had different stories. After that Griggs says that the public offered that body camera could stop these incidents or show who is truly at fault. The article then explains the logistics of how a body camera would work and how it can help with complaints. Many people like deputy assistant to the president, Roy L. Austin JR. also support the cause and think it will positively impact most communities. However, Griggs also writes that cops feel that their supervisors don't trust them and some civilians feel it is videoing them without their consent. Griggs ends the article off by saying that the number of departments who invest in body cams is constantly growing and the public supports them too.
In this biased article, Margaret Talbot explains why cameras on police officers won't save us. She starts off with the fat that when Daniel Pantaleo, the police officer who killed Eric Garner unnecessarily, was pleaded not guilty in the trial, the public said that body camera could have solved the problem. After this fact she goes on to talk about how a similar incident happened after which sparked the Obama Administration to give fifty thousand body cameras to the police departments in need of some. The body cams have caused fewer complaints about the police and less forced used. However, Talbot and criminologist, Michael White believe that it is not all the cameras that make this happen. Most citizens don't even notice the green recording light, White says. White also says the main beneficial role the cameras play is helping with unwanted complaints which are not what most people would think. However, Talbot goes on to say that body cams can be interpreted differently depending on the viewer.
In the article made by ACLU, it starts off by talking about an incident that ended with a 14-year old dead boy and abundance of controversy. The incident was seen by many different witnesses who had many different stories. However, the incident was recorded on one of the officer's body cameras. The article says LAPD created the body cam system as a way of building a trustful and accountable relationship with the public. However, they say most of the cases where a bodycam records the footage, that footage is not shown to the public. So instead of building a better relationship between the public and the police, it just brings about more controversy. Most of the public was for the body cams as it seemed like a good way to see who was at fault. Now that the body cam system has been put into action though, more and more people believe that it is flawed. As more departments start to use body cameras, the public begs for measurement they will show the public the footage. Body cams can help the department find out who is lying, even if it is not shown to the public. The police officers involved will be asked to tell what happened, then the department will compare it to the footage. This is a good way of using the cams however many other departments body cam system is flawed and the public keeps pushing to have it fixed. They end off the article by saying that body cams are not the cure and if you want to use them, use them right.
In this article from, The Economist, by JD it starts off by saying that the incidents with the police are all too familiar. This particular event including the death of Keith Scott ended in many violent protests. One thing that may have prevented this was if the officer was wearing a body camera. The article goes on to say that when the police officer has a body camera on it improves the behavior of the cop and the civilian. A study done at the University of Cambridge shows that if police wear body cams, it can lower the number of complaints made about them each year. The camera also helps officers in the trial. It proves them innocent and they used their gun fairly. They are an efficient way to collect evidence too. They can also be used to train rookies and see what their more experienced co-workers do. However, the article ends off with some counter-arguments against the statement, police should use body cameras. It says that it may be hard to store the footage of what the police camera captured. The usefulness of the cameras outweighs the concerns.