I am extremely interested in this topic because I believe that it is very relevant now. It affects me because I am currently a criminal justice and criminology major. This is currently an issue for the black community. It hits close to home because I am part of the black community and could affect my family, my friends and myself. I have personal volunteered with my local police department. I am qualified to write about this because I have done research on this topic, I study this field and I have first-hand experience with law enforcement. 

In my first source by Jay Stanley, it used statistics about the use of police brutality and excessive use of force. They brought up current cases that were highly publicized and controversial like the Michael Brown case. This source emphasized on trying to make a solution. It offered different policies and outlooks to try to prevent abusing the cameras while also allowing peoples' privacy. This source pulls at ones moral ethics by using cases that are very sensitive to appeal to certain people. It tries to make people relate and understand that it could be them. The main interest in this article is to push a better solution to make citizens safer and the police accountable for how they handle and interact with the public. Jay Stanley is a credible and unbiased. I believe that he is credible because the organization he works for is accredited by the BBB and he is an accredited Senior Policy Analyst. I believe that this article is not biased because it an informative article that offers facts in the form of statistics. This allows one to acknowledge the facts and then thoughtfully choose a whether they agree or not.

In the second source by John Nelson and Richard Smith, is used a two-sided article to argue if law enforcement officers should wear body cameras. The first half argues for them to wear body cameras. The main point of the first half was that police should wear them to hold them accountable for their actions and or inaction. The second half of this source is against the police wearing body cameras. Its main point is that police should not wear them because they are an invasion of privacy and that it would drive away witnesses that are already hesitant about going to the police. The major interest in this article is the safety of the public. It also looks into the Bill of Rights by arguing that it is an invasion of the publics' privacy. It creates a division between the publics need for safety and their human right to privacy. John Nelson and Richard Smith are credible but biased. John Nelson is a Peabody Police Officer and is also Massachusetts Coalition of Police area Vice President. Richard Smith is the Wakefield Police Chief. Since they are both police officers, they basically have one of three ways to look at the situation. One being yes, we need to do something about this growing problem. The second one being no, it invades peoples' privacy and it is too expensive and time consuming to do so. Lastly and officer can look at the situation and realize that there is a problem that needs to be fixed but this solution can be revised to help all parties.

In the third source, it provided case studies/ experiments to show the effectiveness of police officers wearing body cameras in R2R or response-to-resistance incidents and major complaints. It brought of many different experiments throughout the article. Its main focus was on the findings where a police force conducted a randomized controlled experiment. It found that with the use of body cameras, that R2R incidents and major complaints were reduced. The major interest in this article is the effectiveness of the use of body cameras. It looks into the risks of not having them. It also looks into how much of an impact they make. Three different people compose this source. Lorie Friddle, Matthew Lynch and Wesley Jennings are very credible and unbiased. They are all accredited. Two of the authors work for the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of South Florida. The other author works at the Urban Institute- Justice Policy Center in Washington, D.C. Along with working at the DCJ, one author is also a part of the Department of Mental Health, Law and Policy and the Florida Mental Health Institute. This source is unbiased because it is peer reviewed and more than just one author also writes it. The sources displayed in this article were only used to support it but not offer opposing views.

This research is arguable because the topic is very relevant now and because it questions whether or not if it should be a necessity. Among the three sources, they all agreed that it is for the safety of the public and police officers. They all also agree that the cost to run and maintain body cameras is a huge concern. They begin to disagree once a solution is needed. One seems to offer no solution at all but it gives the argument a no because of the concerns. This same article advocates that it violate the publics' privacy. The other two are on the same page on everything and they both look for solutions to the concerns that are brought up. These different perspectives show me that although I believe it would be great to have this in place, it would also be a costly and overbearing requirement for smaller police forces. I could revise my research question by composing a question that would lead to a solution for the smaller agencies.

