Very infrequently does our government operate on an “ask and you shall receive” basis, but it seems we’ve reached one of those occasions. President Barack Obama announced Monday his plans to allot $263 million in funding to provide around 50,000 body-worn cameras and appropriate training for law enforcement officers nationwide.
This announcement comes in the wake of several cases of police brutality, including the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio.
Additionally, Obama said he wants to moniter better the mass distribution of military-grade equipment and weaponry to police departments.
Much of the public has demanded police wear body cameras, especially due to the overwhelming amount of contradictory evidence surrounding the killing of Michael Brown.
For those who don’t know, Cleveland police shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice because they thought his airsoft pistol was a real gun. Cleveland, a newspaper named after its town, reported in an editorial that police originally said Rice was sitting in a group when they approached him. Further, police said they told him to put his hands up and shot when he reached for what looked like a gun. Surveillance revealed that Rice was, in fact, alone when police approached him and that he had his hands up when Timothy Loehman shot him twice.
Without the aid of video surveillance, the police’s account may have been the final say, which would allow for Loehman to get away with his impulsive murder.
Additionally, Rialto, California, Police Chief Tony Farrar, Police Foundation executive fellow, conducted a yearlong study testing the effects of body cameras on police’s use of force. Farrar found that the introduction of cameras significantly reduced accounts of police brutality. For these reasons illustrated, it is absolutely vital that police wear cameras on their uniforms.
We must, however, look at some necessary stipulations that would ensure the cameras’ effectiveness.
For one, there needs to be regulations regarding when police may or may not turn off their cameras, as well as when they may or may not release the footage.
In September, Utah police shot Darrien Hunt six times in the back, killing him, according to Daily Kos. Evidently, the cop who shot him was wearing a camera, but had turned it off. Though this adds suspicion to the case, it allows for greater ambiguity and, therefore, a greater chance of getting away with murder.
As NPR reported back in 2011, there would also be the issue of privacy. These cameras would capture people in very private or weak moments, especially in cases of domestic disputes. If no regulation forbids the sharing of the footage captured, there is nothing aside from honor to stop police from sharing or posting the videos—but if police were known to be honorable, we wouldn’t want them to wear cameras in the first place.
Though there might be a little more regulation necessary to implement them, body-worn cameras pave the way for reducing the perceived police state and bringing balance between authority and the populace. Instead of relying on other police, who may be inclined to cover up for their fellow officers, the public can now hold police accountable for their actions.
