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

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the situation doesn't make sense to you. As you just demonstrated (proving the GP right, I may add), you willfully ignore facts that you happen to dislike, leaving behind a nonsensical patchwork of your feel-good fabrications mixed with 5% of the reality of the situation. The picture is actually much clearer and consistent when you stick to the facts of the case, instead of injecting make-belief nonsense like you have a propensity to do, apparently.

Re:Obviously

[meta-monkey]

Not that they were necessarily "better" but I think the attitudes of police towards the public have indeed changed over the past forty years. Forty years ago there weren't SWAT teams. The cops did not bash down your door, throw in flash bangs and shoot your dog to serve a simple search warrant. They....knocked on the door.

Did they always lie (well, they have to and there's nothing wrong with that so long as it's not under oath), plant drugs on people, shoot black people? Yeah. But damn if they weren't more polite about it.

The "us vs them" mentality wasn't so readily apparent. Maybe it was there and we just didn't notice because there weren't cell phone cameras, and they were mainly doing it to black people. Still, I don't remember cops 15 years ago driving APCs, in body armor, all black, and referring to citizens as "civilians." Now I hear that routinely. If we're civilians...what exactly are you? And what exactly is our relationship?

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:Obviously

[meta-monkey]

Citizen? They use the word "civilian" like it's something we are and they aren't. They're civilians, too. They're not in the military.

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

[ArcadeMan]

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."

Those lower percentages scare me because it's clear proof that a majority of police officers abuse their powers.

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?)

If only the cop had a camera in Ferguson...

[Bueller_007]

Yes, if only the cop had a camera during the Michael Brown stop, then I suppose his killing would have looked more like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Don't forget, the cops in that case knew they were being filmed. Here's another case where cops disgracefully killed someone when they knew they were on film. He had a weapon, but was at such a distance that he posed no threat at all ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) And another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Any time that cops are in a store, they know they're being filmed on security cameras. Here's another "heroic" action by the cops, committing what any sane human would consider to be murder while they know that they are being filmed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And of course don't expect some of the footage not to go "missing" ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/... ), and don't expect the footage to even be released ( http://www.citylab.com/crime/2... ). And even if it goes to a grand jury, don't expect the District Attorney not to knowingly put a liar on the stand and throw the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Obviously this is all anecdotal and not "scientific" compared with the study in the summary, but it should be clear that this problem of police violence is not going to be completely solved until the cultures of "shoot first and ask questions later" and "protect each other" within law enforcement are changed.

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.

Re:Cameras work

[rubycodez]

how about when she's feeling kinky and feisty? does that put the damper on or stoke her fire?

links to video in your reply as proof, please

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]

Violence against police is why police react so forcefully.

Uh-huh. Why, just look at the violence from this unconscious asshole! Why, that threatening way he got thrown from the car when it rolled over at highway speeds - Heck, even I felt intimidated by him, just watching the video!


People who are compliant tend not to get shot.

Right - They just get tased, pepper-sprayed, and/or choked out for shits n' giggles.


The only good cops know they have a camera trained on them (and can't just smash it and harass the photographer), period.

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.

Re:Violence against police ...

[Strangely Familiar]

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.

No, it goes both ways. Police who are overly aggressive and verbally abusive tend to provoke ordinary citizens with a sense of dignity and self respect. When citizens reply verbally in kind to unfair and abusive treatment from the police, the unfair, abusive police escalate and turn the situation violent where the situation should not be violent. This is one of the reasons police cameras work. The police tend to self-monitor and self-censor their overly agressive and abusive behaviors before a confrontation begins to escalate. So a cop is much less likely to start a traffic stop interaction with an angry comment like "What kind of fucking moron drives forty eight in a residential area?" if they know it is going to be on camera for their boss to see.

Not all cops, of course. I have been pulled over by many polite and respectful police officers. And of course, police typically have to deal with drunken belligerents more than church choir members. But someone who is drunk should still be treated with respect, not verbally abused, even while they are being arrested and jailed.

Re:Violence against police ...

[pla]

Again, exceptions don't prove the rule.

You have an odd definition of "exceptions", when I specifically included both the bad cops and the rest of their departments. "But you left out that one really really good cop in a coma for the past 30 years!"


And bystander videos do not exactly tell the whole story.

True enough. Why, in that first video I linked, you don't get to see the context - That the guy had just run over a spike mat, lost control of the vehicle, and almost hit a cop. Clearly that missing details justifies half a dozen armed thugs beating the shit out of an unconscious guy lying bleeding on the side of the highway. Damned biased bystanders, always trying to make the police look bad!


We get to see a far more complete portrayal of events.

Except, of course, when the cameras "malfunction" at those very convenient moments when the accused suddenly has an attack of clumsiness and walks into a brick wall... Repeatedly.


That is why police body cams are so much more useful.

And that is why police hate hate hate mandatory camera policies to the point that they piss and moan and vandalized the cameras and threaten to go on illegal strikes over them.

Re:Violence against police ...

[Noah Haders]

an MRAP makes the average citizen think he is in danger from an armed military invasion. if the police did not behave as if they are an occupying force, then maybe the citizenry would be more receptive to dealing with them.

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.

Re:Good timing...

[meta-monkey]

I'm still furious about the flashbanged baby thing.

The entire circus around Michael Brown was media-generated. Perhaps I need my tinfoil hat adjusted, but I think deliberately so. It's like it was purposely pushed to make black people get up in arms, when clearly, most people looking rationally at the case can wish it didn't happen, but can hardly blame the cop. Brown wasn't innocent; he robbed a store. He wasn't just minding his own business until cops hassled him because he was black; he was walking in the middle of the street. I want cops to stop people walking in the middle of the street and ask them wtf they're doing. He was not an "unarmed teenager;" he was a 300lb man who punched the cop. What the hell? When you drive that story in the media, people like my father who don't think police brutality is a problem take notice of the story, say "this is what the liberals are complaining about? They're morons!" it confirms his biases and he goes right back to ignoring the problem.

Where's the outrage and the marches and protests and media helicopters over flashbanged babies? SWAT teams busting down doors at 3am to serve search warrants? "Overwhelming force?" Budgets that rely on "civil forfeiture" which is literally highway robbery? No, the media pushes the non-story of Michael Brown. Muddies the issue. Ignores the real problems.

It's a conspiracy. A C-O-N...spiracy.

Cameras only a partial solution

[drnb]

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.

Re:Cameras only a partial solution

[bugs2squash]

The handgun part is what has to change. We need to stop promoting them as a must-have item to walk the streets by playing on machismo or exaggerating threats, and/or we need to make them harder to get, or we need to render them obsolete with some better technology. I think we worship them too much for there to be hope of anything but the latter, though it seems a long way off.

Re:Going for cop's gun drastically escalates situa

[drnb]

Brown was shot because he escalated the situation to a "high risk arrest" by going for the cop's gun. Period.

We have no evidence that Brown was trying to take Wilson's gun, only the word of a cop who's been caught lying before. Cops know that "he was going for my gun" are magic words to justify themselves when they commit murders.

Sorry, coroners reports say there was gun powder residue on Brown's hand. You are severely misinformed.

And of course it's irrevelvant whether Brown tried to get control of Wilson's gun earlier in the confrontation. Brown was not trying to do so when he was murdered, he was (according to the majority of witness testimony) attempting to surender.

You have progressed from severely misinformed to absolutely clueless. Minutes earlier he went for the cops gun, that is highly relevant and it absolutely controls everything that followed. It escalates the situation to "high risk". As "high risk" he is more likely to be pursued than to be left to flee. As "high risk" the officer is consider by training and law to be in danger and justified in not allowing the suspect to get close to him.

Regarding witnesses, many have proven to be lying. Seriously, we have one lady changing her story once the feds showed up and said she didn't really see it, she just repeated what her boyfriend told her had happened because she wanted her boyfriend's story to get out there. Witnesses had claimed he was shot in the back, proven false. Witnesses had said he had his hands up, proven false, a bullet grazed his arm indicating otherwise. Seriously, go read the released testimony regarding the evidence rather than rely on what some guy on the internet told you because your "facts" are way off from reality. There is a problem with cops and the communities they police and some cops are bad but in **this** one particular case these factors are not present. People foolishly tried to use this case to highlight these legit problems before the facts were in and now they are having a hard time coming to terms with the facts, that they picked the absolute wrong case to highlight the issues.

Re:No s**t Sherlock

[Free Censorship]

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.

Re:No s**t Sherlock

[Maxo-Texas]

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.