I'm pretty conservative, and generally side with law enforcement when stuff comes up, but I don't see the problem here. If you have just cause to use force, then the camera will verify that.
The issue that I can see from their perspective- is largely two fold. 1. The camera doesn’t see everything. 2. The people judging your use of force usually weren’t there- and often don’t have experience in those types of situations. The third minor one is that cops are human. Imperfect. It’s the whole “curse of social media” thing- my life is full of moments I am so glad weren’t immortalized. I’m a law abiding citizen- a productive and decorated worker who people general think of as a good guy. And I’ve messed up- said things- done things- and I got to move past them. It is an enormous amount of pressure.
As an officer- work and personal time blend. You don’t really get your 15 minute breaks and lunch to be “off the clock.” You take the time between calls to BS with friends or eat or whatever- and know that in a second you might have to go into work mode. So- you’re talking politics or making jokes with your partner. Personal time. You have your feelings, opinions- we all say stupid or problematic things. Sometimes they are “dark” or “edgy” humor you’d have to know us to get or understand we mean no harm. Maybe we are being ironic. Well- 15 minutes later you shoot. Now that video goes to the DA.
Then the news. They will take the part where you were on the car retelling a racial/homophobic/etc joke you were telling on a Dave Chappell special- and that will be used against you. Even if it isn’t in court- the whole world is going to meet you as the cop who shot a guy- and yells racist jokes. That’s all they will know about you- and they will judge you by that. Talking about this or that sexy lady blah blah? Your wife might see that. Your kids.
We can of course say that we should all pretend like we are always being watched- always be the person we’d be proud for our friends and neighbors to see- but then... why do houses have blinds? They aren’t just to keep light out. There are few of any people who are always at their best- or even up to the standards they’d hope. Police SHOULD represent the best of us- but if we only hired paragons... those couple hundred or so cops would be stretched pretty thin.
To be clear- I support body cams. I think ALL public officials including politicians- especially politicians- should wear them and they should r public access. But- there are genuine reasons to resist the idea. I wouldn’t want to wear a body cam while on the clock at my job- I do good work and work hard- I have nothing wrong to hide- but there is a human desire for privacy- and there are those things that aren’t “wrong” but you’d rather they not be public.
What’s more- there isn’t context. You aren’t going to watch weeks or even days of footage to get an idea of who this person is. You aren’t going to get to know them and their quirks or mannerisms. And well- ok- let’s say every cop knows they can’t make racial jokes or sexist comments. Have we eliminated bias in policing or society? No. It’s still there behind their actions- like pushing old moldy pizza under the couch- hidden is still there- it’s just slightly prettier but your guests wonder where the stench is coming from.
I think police are justified to worry about their actions being taken out of context- about in the moment judgment calls made with fear and adrenaline pumping- with incomplete facts and moments to act- being judged by people who’s scariest moment was losing their phone or thinking a homeless guy was following them.
When a case on cam footage goes to review- will they make the hurdles run around the court house 20 laps, then on the 21st- show them the video one time without comment- and ask for a verdict in 5 seconds or less? They won’t. They’ll have days or weeks to pour over it. They’ll meet the family and hear from experts and see the video 100 times in the comfort and safety of a little room. The news will play it and scrutinize it and pour over the officers records to paint the picture of that person they want you to see- and that’s what most people will see.
So accountability is important with police. We probably should train them better and compel them to keep up on that training- focus more on the communities they protect and train in interacting with those communities. Cops aren’t soldiers. We can’t and should t expect them to all be dead shots with ice in their blood- we might even account for that and perhaps restructure police forces and restrict certain types of offices from carrying lethal weapons or require a certain level of certification to do so-
That’s also a social issue of course. Why would a community officer require a gun? We already don’t allow car chases many places. Observe, record- don’t create more danger- apprehend later when conditions are safe. But tell an officer that in a dangerous situation or under fire they’d need to call in for swat or a special unit authorized to carry guns... people will think that is kinda crazy right? But if a citizen says that they want to carry a gun because calling and waiting for the police when they NEED a gun now is suicidal... that’s a very unpopular sentiment no?
But of course- if more law abiding citizens were armed- they wouldn’t really need the police to interdict in as many situations of armed aggression would they? Some theories and evidence show the likelihood of such situations actually goes down just trough the deterrence of an armed populace. Arming police with guns doesn’t seem anecdotally to deter crime does it? So really- police carry guns to shoot people right? Not so much as a deterrent.
It’s more complex than all that surely. But the role of the police isn’t a military or paramilitary organization- their presence is a deterrent. They simply need to represent force- the knowledge that they can command force- not the immediate access to force. If you knew that even if you escape an incident- the chance of arrest over 5 years was 90%- that’s as big a deterrent. Crimes of passion or ignorance/idiocy cannot be deterred so much- but everyone else more or commits crimes they think they can get away with- or they are too desperate to care. The latter can be mitigated through better social programs and structures. The former is a matter of improving the ability of police to perform investigative and preventative work.
So body cameras are an imperfect solution- but one I think is sadly necessary. One I largely support. But there ARE valid reasons to oppose them and VERY valid points for debate on how body cameras are implemented- under what conditions they may be accessed and by whom, how the footage is allowed to be used, and so on. It can’t just be strapping a camera to a cop and live streaming their entire watch with public domain rights to whatever is seen.
The victims and the public they interact with have rights to privacy too. There are things they see that can put other peoples at risk or compromise the security of the organization- and ultimately- if only a chosen few have access and purview over what can be redacted or seen- they don’t really do their job since the information is filtered and controlled by an “elite” with their own agendas and allegiances. But- we can’t make the videos completely public... and when it comes time to review footage you need someone who is as unbiased as possible- but also understands at least a general idea of what those situations are like. Otherwise these videos just become a tool of whoever controls the information.
I’m usually out when I’m writing them. Unless I’m at work. Then I really can’t get out. I’m sorta stuck there waiting for things to happen, tests to be done, emails to be replied, and so forth.
YOU SHOULD HAVE SHOT DEREK JETER!