Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

An anonymous reader writes: Incidents like the Michael Brown case have recently put police body-worn cameras into the public consciousness, but they're not a new idea to criminology experts. In fact, researchers at Cambridge began a study in 2012 using law enforcement in Rialto, California as a test bed. Their results are now in: "The experiment showed that evidence capture is just one output of body-worn video, and the technology is perhaps most effective at actually preventing escalation during police-public interactions: whether that's abusive behavior towards police or unnecessary use-of-force by police." The simple knowledge that both parties are being watched puts a damper on violence. "During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures." This was enough for the city of Rialto to decide it wants to move forward with body-worn cameras; hopefully the study will encourage other police departments as well.

Comments

Obviously

[gurps_npc]

To quote a very stupid cop who was arguing against cameras:

"People react differently when they know they are being watched".

What this cop was too stupid to realize was, the response to his comment is:

YES! THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE WANT THE CAMERAS.

Re: Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

But what will be the reaction of the "activists" when these cameras capture indisputable footage of, say, somebody like Michael Brown launching an unprovoked physical attack against a police officer?

Will they actually admit that maybe the thug involved wasn't such a "good boy", and that maybe it's incorrect to claim "but he didn't do anything wrong"?

Will they just repeatedly deny what the footage shows?

Will they start demanding the removal of these cameras, after the cameras repeatedly capture footage of incidents in which the police acted perfectly reasonably, and some thug did not?

The response to the convenience store footage in the Brown case may be a good preview of how they'd react. It clearly showed Brown acting very violently, and clearly up to no good. Yet instead of accepting what it so obviously showed, the "activists" came up with all sorts of excuses, denials, and even outright fabrications regarding it.

Re: Obviously

[Charliemopps]

But what will be the reaction of the "activists" when these cameras capture indisputable footage of, say, somebody like Michael Brown launching an unprovoked physical attack against a police officer?

They'd probably ask why he tried to apprehend someone twice his size without any backup. Then ask, why after he'd already shot the guy 4 times he had to put 2 more bullets in his head.

Cops should be able to defend themselves, but they seem to be throwing themselves into needless danger over and over again. He was a moron to try and wrestle with this guy over a pack of cigars. If he got away, so what? Then, I don't think I've ever heard one of these police shootings that didn't involve the cop emptying a 16rnd clip. This isn't a western. That, again, is stupid. How many bystanders had bullets whizzing past them? What if the guys friend then turns on the cop? He's out of ammo! And worst of all, you just shot someone to death over a box of cigars. That's not ok. Maybe we should instal missile launchers in their headlights to? There's a jay walker! Lets nuke the intersection, he might be armed!

Re:Obviously

[s.petry]

Why do you think that cops were more accountable 30 or 40 years ago?

Before an answer, I will say that a large part of that trust came from being ignorant to the way the world actually works. I was young, delusional, and believed that authorities would never lie. Outside of Nixon and Kissinger of course. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, and looking back I don't believe they were as accountable as I wanted to believe.. but there are several differences between today and then in attitude and training of law enforcement.

Back then, police were not held in a higher regard than the public. Respected, sure.. but a cop's actions were measured by their risk to the public. For example, the commando style raids we see today are a very new phenomenon. 30-40 years ago this would not have happened unless someone's life was in eminent danger. Today we have commandos chucking grenades into houses to serve warrants. We have commando style raids for non-violent crimes like drug dealing. Cops shooting family pets because they claim "I was afraid of the dog". Those things simply did not happen back then. Police were expected to respect the public as much as the public respected them.

There are many other differences in training and actions found to be acceptable then and now. A cop shooting someone today can simply use the excuse "I thought I was in danger", even when it's a kid playing army with his buddies. That would have had an officer suspended without pay 40 years ago, and back then there were many more kids out playing army/cops & robbers, etc.... Toy guns were much more common, hell we brought them to school to play at recess.

Lastly hiring practices are much different then and now. Then, there was more worry about public perception of officers. Cops were expected to outsmart the bad guys, not kick their asses. Today agencies want the ass kickers, bad asses, and bullies. "Gangs" are not something new, so that excuse does not work as the justification.

Re:Don't tell me police doesn't abuse their powers

[wisnoskij]

You could argue that exact opposite with the same data set. Maybe it proves that putting the criminals in the spot light reduced their violence by 60%, and reduced false "police brutality" claims by 90%

Re:No s**t Sherlock

[Runaway1956]

Yep - seems a no-brainer to me. Anyone who ever went to school knows that the bully isn't going to hammer the snot out of you while the teacher is watching. He waits until Teach has gone back inside to grade paper!

Many people have thunk it.

[MisterSquid]

I cycle in a major metro area and started wearing a highly visible helmet camera for liability reasons.

I also noticed (anecdata!) that the camera tended to have a calming effect on motorists near me as I would (for example) turn to look over my shoulder and the camera profile was visible.

Not all motorists are calmed when they see my camera, but it seems many are (for example, they'll ease off tailgating me and shadowing my blind spots).

I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.

YMMV

Re:Many people have thunk it.

[NoKaOi]

I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.

"Quickly?" In other words, you're riding along the right hand side of your lane, and as a car approaches intending to pass you, you quickly move into the middle or left of the lane to force them to quickly slow down to prevent passing. Doing anything "quickly" that obstructs others is a dick move and you know it. You're an asshole who makes the rest of us cyclists look bad. Only in very rare situations would that "quickly" move promote safety. It's unsafe to anger another driver, both to you and the next cyclist they come upon. You're not doing it to promote safety, you're doing it to express dominance, like a gorilla beating its chest.

Next time you try that, think about this - are you doing it to promote safety, or are you doing it to try to express dominance by proving that you can legally be a dick? Believe me, the other driver doesn't care how big your penis is, so be the better person and don't be a dick or a dumbass to cars when you're on your bike, you're making the rest of us look bad, and it hurts us when we actually want to promote safety or policy changes (who wants their tax dollars to pay for bike lanes for a bunch of assholes like you?)

Re:Cameras work

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need to record her to change her behavior, your relationship is doomed. I wonder what she does when you aren't around.

Violence against police ...

[drnb]

I really don't care about violence against police, but if this bullet points helps convince PD's to adopt cameras then super!

What an ignorant statement you offer. Violence against police is why police react so forcefully. According to the FBI nearly 10% of police officers who get shot are shot with their own gun. That is why unarmed people who try to get into a wrestling match with cops get shot, because the cops are very afraid of losing control of their own gun.

People who are compliant tend not to get shot. People who react violently are far more likely to get shot. So if you actually care about people getting shot you should care about violence against police.

Re:Violence against police ...

[pla]

Exceptions don't prove the rule.

You see all those "good" cops standing around "just doing their jobs" in those videos?

The guy choking the drunk college kid out doesn't prove the rule. All those "good" cops doing nothing, however, do.

For every bad cop we hear about, know that an entire fucking department has facilitated his behavior, making them every bit as worthless as the "bad" ones.

The more interesting part

[smooth wombat]

and reports against officers dropped by 87%

While most people on here are focusing on the police portion, the civilian portion is more damning. It shows the amount of crap police have to put up with by people who think they'll file a brutality report so they can not be held responsible for their actions.

I don't have the link, but some on here will remember the video of the woman who was in the back of a police car yelling and screaming for the police to stop hitting her without realizing a camera was recording the whole thing. When she claimed police brutality, the video was shown and the charges were thrown out.

While there is certainly some police abuse going on, there are much more claims by people of police abuse where none exists. Just like dashboard cameras, it works both ways so when people claim they weren't doing anything when they were shot, the camera will show them reaching for their gun (see the most recent shooting in Missouri though we don't have video of the incident).

Re:No s**t Sherlock

[Imagix]

Or, as mentioned in the summary, the customer is not being abusive towards the officer as often and thus avoids escalation to where the officer feels that they need to up the force.

Going for cop's gun drastically escalates situatio

[drnb]

Brown was shot because he escalated the situation to a "high risk arrest" by going for the cop's gun. Period. That is the single factor that dominated all that followed. According to the FBI 10% of the cops who get shot are shot with their own gun after losing control of it. So go for an cop's gun and the rules of engagement radically change. You will not be allowed to get close enough for a wrestling match. Once you go for the gun your not just some guy who stole some cigarettes and shoved a store clerk. You are according to police training and the law a lethal threat if you try to get close rather than comply and get on the ground.