Think Freely Media presents Common Sense with Paul Jacob

Public Record

body camera, police, abuse, civil rights, obstruction, brutality

Police departments nationwide have begun to outfit their on-duty officers with body cameras. These small recording devices make great sense, so we can better judge police encounters.

And it turns out that not only do police behave better when wearing body cameras, so do the citizens with whom they interact.*

Yet, cameras aren’t magic. They do not work when turned off. And video recorded by police offers little value when tampered with or deleted.

On Monday, the Washington Post ran an in-depth feature about the 2014 fatal shooting of 19-year-old Mary Hawkes by Albuquerque, New Mexico, police, who pursued her for allegedly stealing a truck.

The Post explained that her case “has become a cautionary tale about the potential of new technology to obscure rather than illuminate, especially in situations when police control what is recorded and shown to the public,” raising concern “about whether a nationwide rollout of body cameras is fulfilling promises of greater accountability.”

Six police officers huddled in close proximity to the deadly incident — all wearing body cameras. The officer who shot Ms. Hawkes, however, had his turned off. Footage from three others “showed signs of alterations and a deletion.”

A federal investigation is underway.**

It is now obvious that cameras alone won’t suffice. Rules must require that the cameras be turned on — with consequences for non-compliance. The public needs access to the footage, too.

The Police Cameras for Ferguson initiative*** on the ballot April 4th does exactly that. We need similar legislation in Albuquerque and everywhere else.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* See Barak Ariel, William A. Farrar, Alex Sutherland, “The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology (September 2015, Volume 31, Issue 3), pp 509–535; reportage on this study can be found here.

** The probe has already revealed that a former Albuquerque police employee has declared, in an affidavit, “it was routine for officials to delete, alter or refuse to release footage because of ‘political calculations.’”

*** Your support is still desperately needed to educate voters in Ferguson, Missouri, about the Police Camera ballot measure. Please help today.


Printable PDF

 

By: CS Admin

4 Comments

  1. John F. Brennan says:

    Really, films provided are not accurate?  The most involved offices camera was inadvertently turned off, damaged or malfunctioned?  The recording is incomplete or modified?  
    This sounds like the birth of a new service sector, and a defense and plaintiff’s counsel’s dream. 
    Paul, is the rumor true that Titanic was not a documentary?

  2. Paul Jacob says:

    LOL. Well said, Mr. Brennan.

  3. JdL says:

    “The public needs access to the footage, too.”

    This is tricky. Suppose a camera-wearing officer illegally barges into your home and into a bathroom where your wife/daughter/sister is showering? And that the ensuing footage shows plenty of flesh. Should this footage be made public? Even if certain details are airbrushed out, the connection with your family member won’t and can’t be concealed. Are you ok with that?

    If, on the other hand, we say, “Everything except for a few exceptions will be made public,” we open the door to inevitable corruption at the hands of those responsible for choosing what the public sees. It’s a difficult conundrum.

  4. Paul Jacob says:

    The Ferguson initiative deals with this problem very well, IMHO. If the video is taken on private property, the person(s) in the video has a right to view it. If it is taken on public property, the public has a right to view it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2017 Common Sense with Paul Jacob, All Rights Reserved. Back to top