Police Worn Body Cameras : Rough Draft

Across the country a growing number of legislative departments have been debating about the pros and cons of police body cameras. This paper will further explore benefits, as well as the downfalls of using such devices. This paper will also look at specific cases and examine whether or not body cameras were helpful in various situations. It will examine if they were a deterrent in cases dealing with police brutality and domestic violence. It also looks at how they could be misused and assisting some officers in covering up their corrupt behavior.

There are three main points supporters argue in this debate of why police should be mandated to wear body cameras. First, supporters state that police body cameras can help solve police brutality. The first police department in the United States to implement police body cameras was in Rialto, California, and according to Al Jazeera America, "The department saw an 88 percent decline in complaints against officers and use of force incidents plummeted to 60 percent" (Demetrius and Okwu 2). These supporters think if we were to implement police body cameras for all police departments in the United States, then these effects on police brutality could be attained nationwide. Second, supporters believe that body cameras will punish corrupt police

Imagine you received mistreatment from a police officer and decide to take legal action against them. The situation becomes their word against yours because there is no evidence to prove the mistreatment you suffered. Not all police officers are out to treat people incorrectly or use excessive force; however, in the cases when they do, there is usually no way to prove that it happened. There are also cases where people say they were mistreated by a police officer, but it is not true. What if there were a way to monitor how cops interact with the public? Body cameras offer a solution to the need to monitor police actions. They capture the truth, whether good or bad, that happens with police officers. Police should wear body cameras to be protected from legal cases, as demonstrated in the case of David Muniz, who was accused of being the reason for a Cleveland man’s death.

In today’s society no one is safe from everyday peril. Situations arise daily that may present either a law enforcement official or just a civilian with a situation that could warrant the need for extra protection. In some cases it is a matter of he said she said. In just those instances it is important that there be some sort of documentation that provides corresponding evidence. Body cameras have been tested in a small group of police departments and have provided an overwhelming positive effect. Police officers wearing body cameras not only provide the officers with an extra peace of mind but give the civilians documentation to back up their sides of the story.

The body cameras will record of what occurred and this camera will be the tool which will make it clear whether the officer was justified in using force and also it will prove the fact that the officer was correct. Everyone has a right to act in self defense. The video from the body camera presents an unbiased account of the events. This is a very important fact because nowadays when police officers make an assert of a criminal we see that most of the criminals are African American which makes them biased. The body cameras has no motive to lie and it has no stake in the outcome. It merely records the event as it happens. If a police officer acts lawfully, then he should not be blamed and accused wrongfully. The officers have the right to defend themselves and not suffer the punishment which they do not deserve. The usage of the body camera will not only provide the officers defense but it will be this strongest witness which will not be argued with. There are some drawbacks to the use of body cameras such as privacy concerns for both officers and the citizens when they encounter each other. The storage of data capturing images of innocent people, the possible tampering with the images, and the

The social media and the public might want police body cam footage release but sometimes it might be to graphic or controversial. Police body cameras have been a topic since the incident with Michael Brown in august of 2014. Police shot and killed an unarmed individual in ferguson, MO, leading to many people wanting cameras on police. Whether the cameras are a good idea or not this paper will explore the facts and sides of police body cameras. Overall body cameras should be required Because they can save the lives of the innocent, keep innocent people from going to jail, and can help a case as more evidence.

The most beneficial way to work with the community is by having body cameras. According to Issues and Controversies, President Obama said, “the safer it is for cops, the more effectively they can do their jobs, the more cooperation there’s going to be, the more likely those communities are to be safe” (Police Body Cameras). Due to, the power of authority police officers is mistreating and killing the civilian. As a result, the community feels unsafe and fears police officers. For this reason, implementing body cameras on police officers is crucial for safety, evidentiary purpose, and liability.

Stories of presumed police misconduct have been surfacing in America in the last couple of years, sparking many debates and speculations on the true causes of these situations. Many blame the officers in these encounters, forcing them to face repercussions for crimes they did not commit. Alternatively, in some situations, the officer is guilty, but public outcries in favor of the police protect them from any consequences. Regardless of the situation, there is a great bias concerning law enforcement in this country. Recently, people have begun advocating for body cameras on police officers to provide the public with accurate records of all police encounters so that no false claims could be made against the officers. Body cameras on policemen should be necessary for the safety and comfort of our citizens, as well as for our officers, for regaining the public’s trust, and for maintaining an honest law enforcement system.

With so many incidents occurring between law enforcement and civilians, it’s about time we have our officers wear body cameras. Law enforcement wants to use body cameras, many politicians are in favor for them, Civil-rights groups are advocating them, and communities that already have a strong police presence in their neighborhoods are requesting that the police get cameras now. With the uproar of law enforcement and the death of many black American’s, body cameras can be very useful. There is always that missing link when trying to put these horrible moments back together. Far too many times we end up with the suspect dead and only get one side of the story. With the use of body cameras, we can now get more insight on the events that happen (Boyd, 2015).

Over the past year there have been many situations between police officers and civilians that we don’t exactly know what happened because it someone’s word over another. In August 2014, an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, was shot by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Some witnesses confirmed the police officer’s claim that he shot the teenager under self defense. While others claimed that the victim posed no threat to the officer and that the shooting was uncalled for. The result of this was that the police officer wasn’t charged with a crime. If that officer had been wearing a body camera, while he was on duty, we could see with our own eyes if Michael Brown was threatening to the officer or if the shooting was unjustified. Police officers should wear body cameras while on duty because the cameras would hold police accountable to their actions, prevent violence, and would improve the public’s perspective on police officers.

Evidence is very important in a case. So what is the best way to get true evidence? Body cams can help find the evidence that is needed for a case. This way evidence can always be 100% correct. Andy Hoover said “Video provided critical evidence in the Hummelstown case and in the shooting death of Walter Scott in North Charleston, S.C., in which officer Michael Slager has been charged with homicide.”. This is proof of the positive effect that body cameras have on the community. If body cameras were not used in this case, the officer could have not be charged with nothing. Evidence is very helpful when it is correct. “Captain De Anda says the footage has been useful as evidence during prosecution, and that the presence of the cameras seems to serve as a check on inappropriate behavior by both police and citizens. In addition, he says, it 's already served as a protection for officers accused of excessive force.” says Amanda Paulson who lives in Ferguson where the death of Michael Brown occurred.

Body cameras can hold police officers accountable for their actions, both the good and the bad. “Continuously wearing body cameras would hold police accountable for their appropriate, and inappropriate, conduct” (Buam). Also when the citizens make accusations they could pull the video from the camera and see whether the police officer did what they said they did or not. “Video recorded by body cams protect any false accusations, misconduct, or abuse

In the case of the Michael Brown shooting, lack of a video recording lead to mixed reports from either side. A large amount of confusion comes from the fact that no one knows what really happens in these cases. A camera would certainly lead to a better understanding of what happens in a police issue.The viewer could clearly see what happens, and a judge can make the best decision. Fingerprints can only provide so much proof, so a physical video recording would most likely be the deciding factor in the

On the evening of February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, a neighborhood watch coordinator, George Zimmerman fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old teenager named Trayvon Martin. Some say Zimmerman acted rightfully in self-defense while others believe he acted wrongfully by racially profiling Martin during the incident. Similarly, on August 9, 2015, an 18-year-old teenager named Michael Brown was fatally shot to death by police officer, Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. Some witnesses believe that Brown was unarmed during this unfortunate incident and that he was holding his hands up in order to surrender to Wilson. Unfortunately, society may never know what actually happened since witnesses, proof, and evidence were very limited during that time of the events. Incidents like these may never have to happen again if law enforcement wore body cameras during their shifts. Body-worn cameras are a video recorder mainly used by police and law enforcement to record interactions with the public, evidence at crime scenes while still improving officer and citizen accountability. Due to the recent rise in news following innocent people being unjustly shot by law enforcement, the idea of wearing body cameras are starting to look like a great idea. Body worn cameras seem like a great asset to utilize for every police officer out there however there are some faults to it as well like some security, ethical, and social issues.

A recent case of the used of police dash cameras is of Laquan McDonald. A seventeen year of teenager who was shot sixteen times in the night of October 24, 2014 by Officer Jason Van Dyke. The police officer fired his pistol for thirteen seconds unto the unmoving body of McDonald. Not only was he fired those sixteen shot he was also fired from the back fifteen feet away until the officer emptied his pistol. The officer was assigned desk duty, but not fired angers the black in the city. “Van Dyke's attorney says he's confident his client will prevail in the courtroom” (Good). He doesn’t believes the digital evidence that shows the killing of McDonald is evidence evidence enough to show the full picture of the