Body Camera Conundrum

[SansSouci]

[omgwtfbbq]

While I don't necessarily disagree entirely with your premise (particularly that PBC footage shouldn't be released prior to the conclusion of an investigation); I have to ask, what is the alternative?

Take the Michael Brown case for example. There was no PBC footage of that incident and while Officer Wilson' was eventually exonerated, his career was ruined. Furthermore his personal safety will never be truly intact again.

The media and airchair use of force experts are going to twist and modify their view of the "facts" to fit their preconceived notions whether there is a camera present or not.

The PBC, however, can also be used to corroborate an officer's statement, or to speak for an officer who can't speak for themselves, such as in the case of assaults against or even murders of officers on duty.

PBC footage is also a valuable training tool for LE departments. We are all human and we are likely to make mistakes at times. If we can learn from the mistakes of others, we make ourselves better officers.

I don't think proponents of PBCs believe it will be a magic cure-all to the rift between a segment of the public and those in Law Enforcement. However, I do believe that the use of PBCs is something that we as officers should seriously consider. I don't want some dirtbag ending my career because he, his family, or unreliable witnesses took to social media and spread lies about my conduct on the job. If wearing a PBC deceases my chance of having to go through what former Officer Wilson had to go through, It a small sacrifice to make in my opinion.

[SansSouci]

Hi omgwtfbbq,

I'm not advocating not using body cameras. I am advocating not releasing body camera video until investigations are completed. That way, integrity of investigations can be preserved.

[pacrat]

Hi omgwtfbbq,

I'm not advocating not using body cameras. I am advocating not releasing body camera video until investigations are completed. That way, integrity of investigations can be preserved.

I agree with you up to a point. IMO, that point is when the Dept releases a video that clearly shows that the allegations of coverups, etc. Which are so often promoted by the Bias Stream Media, and the likes of Farrakon, Jesse Jackson, Sharpton, and even the O-hole in the White House. Are groundless and self serving, in order to forment unrest, incite riots, sell newspapers, and log talking head face time on TV.

In those instances where it causes no harm to the integrity of an investigation. And kicks the soap boxes out from under those who make a living off of inciting riots. I see release of vids as a positive step to rebuild trust between police and citizens.

As to these quotes by you in this OP. I suggest you please go back and carefully read the entire thread you are referring to. Specifically the posts I made, and the context of what I was referring to when I made them.

Body cameras are problematic for law enforcement agencies if they compromise ongoing criminal investigations. pacrat, in another thread, wrote that he saw a videoed version of the Cincinnati shooting and has drawn a conclusion from it. Therein lies one of the problems that I perceive is caused by body cameras. Interpretations of video are not always correct.

Most problematic of body cameras is the potential for compromising ongoing criminal investigations. pacrat saw it, and he thinks he can draw a valid conclusion from it. Worse, releasing it to the public compromises integrity of potential witness statements. If a witness saw the video, is he stating what he actually witnessed or what he saw on video?

[pacrat] Not only did NOT draw any "valid conclusions" from the video of the incident at the U of Cincinnatti shooting. I refused to even voice an [opinion] as to the shooting itself.

Also in that incident. The supposed "eye witness". Who gave a BSM curbside interview, the day after the shooting. Who on "Talking Head" camera condemned the officer and accused him of "executing" the suspect. Was shown to be at least totally wrong, and likely nothing but a flagrant liar.

That wouldn't have happened if the body cam footage hadn't been released. The world would have only seen his obviously biased and untrue account of what happened. In which case Cincinnatti may have become the latest Baltimore or Ferguson.

JM2c

[Jeepergeo]

Hi omgwtfbbq,

I'm not advocating not using body cameras. I am advocating not releasing body camera video until investigations are completed. That way, integrity of investigations can be preserved.

Body camera video, and private cell video and location video, help promote transparency in government and the integrity of investigations. With public confidence at perhaps an all time low, more and immediate transparency can only help move towards restoration of confidence to historic levels. That to me seems to be a win-win proposition.

[SansSouci]

Jeepergeo,

No one is arguing against releasing video. I am advocating not releasing it until investigations are completed. That is the only way to deduce facts as opposed to conjecture, which causes lose-lose situations. Compromising investigations by prematurely releasing videos promote erroneous conclusions.

The Cincinnati video was released. Many people have assumed that it is definitive of what happened, a very tenuous assumption.

[SonofWWIIDI]

I too agree with you, partially. I do think that the videos should be held until investigations are completed. Problem with that is that the media would cry foul with a "the people have a right to know" argument. Besides, from a media perspective, an incident that occurred weeks-months prior, already deemed a non issue (in most cases IMO) by the investigative board, is no longer important, imflamatory, and spectacular news.

You did discuss the real problem. The media.

They spin the stories, edit the tapes, and inflame the sheeple with wild a** guesses and commentary (read speculation) from "experts" who were not there. They exploit the fervor that they create to generate ratings. Therein lies the problem. The news should report, not define events. It's not just with PBCs either.

How many "breaking news" stories have immediate information that is completely incorrect? How many news report use incorrect, inflammatory verbiage? i.e. "... Assailant used a machine gun..." When the correct term is semi auto rifle, or "...suspect shot them with an ar-15 assault rifle..." Yet no such rifle was actually used. Happens all the time. And not just with PBCs, or "active shooter" events. It happens with anything "newsworthy" that is going on right now.

Media should report, not speculate, embellish, lie, etc. But when they do, and it turns out they were wrong, they really don't care. Give the sheeple what they want. And they want exciting, fast paced, right now news. Not in depth, lengthy boring news. They want something to complain about, to riot over, to have a reason to be something less than a reasonable human being. And the media provides.

The tail wags the dog.

[SansSouci]

Bobby,

I agree with you. The prosecution of the Cincinnati cop seems to me to be an effort to prevent rioting, which, when followed through to it's logical conclusion, means that we're no longer living under what was formerly American jurisprudence. Justice has evolved into justice by threats and intimidation, not to mention preservation of political careers. Do we still have a 5th Amendment? Does it not apply to cops?

How was that Cincinnati prosecutor able to determine a crime was committed within a day when it takes 6 weeks for a tox report? Hence, the investigation would take at least 6 weeks. I think that the prosecutor rushed to kidnap that cop in order to secure his political position and to prevent riots, which are lynch mobs.

The suspect used his vehicle as a deadly weapon. The cop responded within law. Therefore, his arrest was a kidnapping by legal process. If I'm right, the prosecutor must be arrested for kidnapping using perverted legal process.

Body cam videos must not be released until investigations are completed. That way, the press cannot corrupt them for ratings purposes. It is routine that cops will not release info on ongoing criminal investigations. All cops have to do is tell media that video will be released when investigations are completed.

I'd much rather go with an officer's perception than video. Videos do not think and process stimuli. Cops's brains do.