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.
Cameras are only a partial solution. While they tend to keep **both** sides honest and calm, they don't really change the fact that if the cop is in danger he will react with deadly force out of fear. Another part of the solution is to not send cops out alone, always have them go out in pairs.
If a cop is alone and fears a person may try to take his gun he will not let that person get close enough for a wrestling match. He will shoot.
If a cop is not alone he is far more likely to use a less-than-lethal weapon such as a taser or baton since his partner will have a lethal weapon at the ready should the person get ahold of the cop's gun.
Cops are paranoid about losing control of their gun, according to the FBI about 10% of those cops shot are shot with their own gun. Having a partner greatly helps reduce this fear.
Garner was resisting arrest.
Barely at all.
The police are authorized to apply force to enforce the laws.
But not excessive force, and not when someone is saying they can't breath. Certainly not that choke hold which was against policy.
It's unfortunate that Garner died, but had he not resisted, he'd be alive today.
Why don't you move to North Korea? I don't know if you realize this, but the US is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Everyone should be extremely cautious and critical of authority figures, not give them the benefit of the doubt or let them off when they screw up (intentionally or not).
If the cops hadn't applied overwhelming force and had actually listened when he said that he couldn't breath, he would be alive. Why don't you blame the people who actually used the force? They made their own decision to do so.
The bottom line is, the cops are supposed to respect people's liberties, have legal authority over others, and are supposed to be trained professionals. They deserve no mercy when it comes to being prosecuted, but prosecutors are of course biased in their favor, so good luck punishing them.
Do you realize that american police officers kill united states citizens at over 50x the rate UK and German police officers kill their citizens?
Do you realize that american police officers kill more children each year (including 7 year old girls) than UK and german police officers kill all citizens (including adults) combined? And basically at an infinitely higher rate.
United states police have reported* killing over 400 citizens per year since 9/11. Meanwhile, germany and uk have killed reported killing under 4 citizens per year in the same time period.
*United states police forces are NOT required to report citizens killed and many do not so the actual number of citizens killed in the united states is higher than reported.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.