The effect of police body-cams
It’s nil, at least according to this study of Washington DC police:
Having police officers wear little cameras seems to have no discernible impact on citizen complaints or officers’ use of force, at least in the nation’s capital.
That’s the conclusion of a study performed as Washington, D.C., rolled out its huge camera program. The city has one of the largest forces in the country, with some 2,600 officers now wearing cameras on their collars or shirts.
“We found essentially that we could not detect any statistically significant effect of the body-worn cameras,” says Anita Ravishankar, a researcher with the Metropolitan Police Department and a group in the city government called the Lab @ DC.
“I think we’re surprised by the result. I think a lot of people were suggesting that the body-worn cameras would change behavior,” says Chief of Police Peter Newsham. “There was no indication that the cameras changed behavior at all.”
Perhaps, he says, that is because his officers “were doing the right thing in the first place.”
Maybe. Maybe not.
But I always thought that the purpose of wearing cameras—at least, from the police’s point of view—was to use them as evidence when mistreatment or brutality is alleged. That’s what DC Police Chief Newsham seems to think has happened:
In his view, the cameras have helped his department enormously after contentious encounters like a recent one on Christmas, when police officers fatally shot a man who was brandishing a knife. Some had suggested the man was not armed, but Newsham says the video shows otherwise.
“I think it’s really important for legitimacy for the police department,” says Newsham, “when we say something to be able to back it up with a real-world view that others can see.”
Sometimes I think that in the future we’ll all have cameras implanted on our bodies, taking continuous ongoing video of all our interactions. Just think how valuable that might be in spousal arguments!
The assumption from the progressives that all of these shootings can be avoided simply if the police officers can be more compassionate toward minorities, and them pulling gun is a conscious decision that can be controlled is simply false. Police only pull guns out in life and death situations, them wearing cameras will not change that fact and make them be more empathetic toward suspects by not pulling a gun out in a dangerous situation and risk their life to be more compassionate. even when an officer knows there is a camera, he/she will still open fire anyway and let the court decide if the shooting is rightful, no one is going to take unnecessary risk of live and death to be compassionate.
The most valuable thing in “spousal arguments” is getting rid of the spouse. Cameras would put a serious crimp in this cure and therefore are to be eschewed.
An imbedded camera, as in “The Final Cut” (2004)? Robin Williams plays a cutter, the guy that produces the final edit of your entire life. A valuable or creepy concept? I say creepy.
One thing that certainly needs to happen is that whenever a police officer is involved in a shooting, if the body-cam was somehow “turned off” or was never turned on, the onus should be on the officer to prove what happened – and the citizen should be believed. Too many – and “one” would be too many – officers fail to turn on their cameras before engaging the suspects/citizens.
I’d recommend that the cameras be on at ALL times.
how about do it both way, whenever anyone who’s lies of police brutality got debunked by a body camera will be put on the front page of New York Times to let the country knows how often do criminals lie about being unfair treated by police.
I am so sick and tried of liberals picking out one very rare incident and blow it up to portray it as a trend to push their deceptive agenda.
neocon says Just think how valuable that might be in spousal arguments!
I guess you haven’t met the spouse who gets twice as mad if you show them they’re wrong.
: ]
Dave,
Publicizing false accusations to create greater public awareness, while worthwhile is not nearly enough. There must be consequence and it must be proportional to the offense.
At the very least, that’s obstruction of justice and they should go to prison regardless of whether the criminal offense for which they were arrested, results in imprisonment or even is prosecuted. Same thing for false rape accusations. The accuser should be receive the same sentence as does a real rapist.
There’s a profound reason why “bearing false witness” is prohibited in the Ten Commandments.
We went through this once already.
1. Cops beat Rodney King
2. Someone recorded it
3. Riots lead to calls for all officers to wear bodycams
4. Bodycams distributed
5. Footage shows criminals clearly threatening officers, even putting them in danger
6. Bodycams taken away, because they keep recording things #BLM don’t want them to, and DAS RACIS
If America was never great then why do liberals like to preach to us that we need to be more compassionate like we are a great country or something, why don’t liberals take their lectures to other also never great countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan and preach their values there.
DC is so corrupt, you can probably just take it on faith that they faked the stats.
DC doesn’t need body cameras, because they need to execute Americans on demand, otherwise they can’t protect Congress critters. Remember that incident when the DC SS killed off some black woman and grabbed the child that was in the car, because they said she was running barricades? She wasn’t running barricades, they lied about that one. Congress cheered and clapped though, so that was good.
Dave Says:
October 21st, 2017 at 3:39 pm
Leftists, the police unions, the mayors of various Demoncrat fortress fiefdom cities, and the mafia/gangs, all work together.
Don’t worry, they have a plan.
And, as predictably as the sun shall rise, body cams are racist again.