The Cleveland Division of Police has finally begun equipping cops with body cameras, but their utilization raises as many questions as they potentially answer. While there have been numerous glowing reports from police departments across the country attesting to the ability of the devises to lower tensions and confrontations between police and the citizenry (and ultimately reducing the number of complaints against officers), other departments are not as enthusiastic in their assessments of the effectiveness of the relatively new policing technology.
While at first blush body cameras seem to make a lot of sense by providing a video of what actually transpired in a particular confrontational incident, the fact that the cop who killed Eric Garner (while applying a clearly outlawed chokehold) was not even indicted, let alone having to stand trial for his actions, in spite of clear video evidence of his crime.
This raises the question: Just how much sense does it make to outlay millions of taxpayer dollars if, in spite of whatever evidence the camera records, grand jurors won’t indict, and in the end, justice still is not served?
Cameras don’t lie, but those who support bad cops — no matter how egregious their behavior — do. And, since the cameras being used here in Cleveland have to be activated by the officer, I can already hear — immediately after an incident where someone was beaten or killed — the cop saying with a straight face: “I didn’t have time to turn my camera on.”
Nonetheless, they still had time to draw their weapon and shoot someone. And the police union boss, Steve Loomis, will be right there, backing the cop to the hilt while probably talking trash about how hard the cameras are to activate. And most folks will lap it all up with a spoon.
In jurisdictions where law enforcement has eschewed use of body cameras (and in some cases dash cameras also) a host of reasons are typically given, from the high cost of the devices, privacy and security concerns, and even the amount of computer storage space required to store data — but essentially it boils down to some police departments simply don’t want anyone (or any device) looking over cops’ shoulders.
And then there is the issue of who profits from the purchase of body cameras. One Cincinnati activist I spoke to said that Taser International, the primary provider of body cameras, has a vested interest in praising the new technology.
“They’re making a ton of money off the sales of body cameras … their stock is going through the roof. So of course they’re going to promote the idea that their products will solve all of the problems of confrontations between law enforcement and citizens, but of course they won’t,” the woman (who wishes to remain anonymous) said.
However, the Washington, D.C.-based Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit, independent research organization, published an 80-page report on the use of body cameras in 2014. A survey of 254 U.S. police departments showed favorable results. For example, the Rialto Police Department in California reported a 60 percent decrease in uses of force after implementing the cameras.
“There are certainly benefits, whether it be from the community side or the police side, in documenting encounters with the public. It provides the context of what happened,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum. “At the same time, I would say that cameras by themselves are insufficient in building trust in the community. You need to build relationships with the community, and you need to train your officers.”
That last sentence says it all.
From Cool Cleveland correspondent Mansfield B. Frazier mansfieldfATgmail.com. Frazier’s From Behind The Wall: Commentary on Crime, Punishment, Race and the Underclass by a Prison Inmate is available again in hardback. Snag your copy and have it signed by the author by visiting http://NeighborhoodSolutionsInc.com.