We live in a time today when media plays a huge role in society. From social media networks such as Twitter and Facebook to news media, things can spread fast and easily. Something that has taken the spotlight in national debate recently is the topic of police brutality. The use of deadly force on unarmed people has been consistently appearing in the news and has caused an uproar in commotion ranging from political action to violent protests. People have seen it happen, they've watched the news, they've thought for themselves, and they want change. Something needs to be done to better hold police and citizens accountable for their actions. After video footage from bystanders has proven numerous officers' stories false, I've learned that we cannot prejudge offenders and automatically defend the testimony of police officers. Video footage shows what false testimonies and criminal prejudice don't tell in court. For this reason, we need to equip officers of the law with body-worn cameras as well as improve training. By doing this, we can hold both officers and offenders more accountable for their actions; knowing that they are being recorded will likely deter any unnecessary action. All police should be required to wear body-worn cameras which will improve relations between officers and civilians, make the police force more efficient at carrying out their tasks, and significantly reduce the number of police shootings.

To put things in perspective, last May the Washington National Post reported a total of 385 fatalities from police shootings so far in 2015. Numbers were approaching 400 deaths not even half way through the year. One in six were unarmed or carried a toy weapon, something of no harm to an officer that would call for lethal force. This isn't new, it's just been headlining the news more often now because of videos surfacing the internet showing unnecessary violence from officers. 

Michael Brown, a recent graduate from Normandy High School in Wellston, was spending the Summer with his grandmother, whom described him as a "good kid" (McLaughlin). One day, the young man happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A local gas station was looted, and officers flooded the scene. Brown stood unarmed with his hands in the air when he was shot not once but several times from a single officer. The reports from the officer do not match up with those of several bystanders, who claimed he "did nothing to instigate the shooting" (McLaughlin). Shells were collected from the scene, and the young man's mother was told that her high school grad was shot eight times. There is no denying that shooting an unarmed teen eight times while he is standing helpless thirty-five feet away with his hands in the air is excessive. Now, the Chief of St. Louis County Police told the news that it was a physical altercation between Brown and the officer inside the car that lead to the shooting. This case would instantly be settled if the officer was equipped with a body-worn camera. And Brown certainly isn't alone. He is joined by many other innocent victims including  a 12-year old outside a recreational center and a man who yelled "I can't breathe" as he was strangled to death by an officer (McLaughlin). It's cases like these and so many others that end up racking up legal fees and influencing violent riots and outbursts from the public who are rightfully angry over this reoccurring theme of police brutality.

Some important leaders have already taken action to fix this issue. Nedra Pickler, a member of the Associated Press, writes that Obama has recognized this as a pressing issue in today's society, and has called Congress for support of his $263 million dollar plan that would put 50,000 body worn cameras on officers and increase training across the country. Training needs to improve if we want officers to make the right decisions in high stress situations. In the article "Race and Police Brutality: Roots of an Urban Dilemma", the author notes that records of police misconduct were highest during the 19th and 20th century, when ironically police training was minimal. If we don't value the training of our officers, how are we going to trust them with a gun and badge to always do the right thing? With this much power, police need to make the right decisions, or it may cost innocent lives. 

It isn't just the President who is calling for change. The Toronto Police department can speak from experience after using body-worn cameras with their bicycle unit of police officers. In a short, educational video, the Radio-Canada film crew accompanies these officers in Toronto as they talk about how the cameras have affected their procedures. Staff Sergeant Michael Barsky says that the body-worn cameras create a "better, more accurate record of police interactions in the community"(FEATURE: A day in the life of Toronto police and body-worn cameras). In one part, the officers go around asking the public of their opinion on being recorded. They were supportive of the idea and felt safer knowing that they would be recorded in case anything bad happened. Also, they have found several beneficial uses of the cameras for investigative purposes that go beyond civilian confrontation and could really help the community. One of the major uses of video-surveillance is for investigative purposes. Officers don't remember everything they see when they are called to a scene, so by recording things they can later go back and review the footage for any missed evidence. Each officer is assigned a camera that he or she activates in cases like a traffic stop or talking to a drunk person outside a bar. Later they review their own footage, which also may be reviewed by their supervisors. This footage helps to expedite cases and save them time and money. Therefore, the benefits of body-worn cameras have proven to go beyond physical interactions of police and offenders, and the public supports it. 

Speaking of the public opinion, a poll with the question "Should police officers be required to wear body worn cameras" received nearly 100,000 votes. The results came out to 70% "yes" and 30% "no". Many of those who voted "yes" added that the cameras would protect the safety and rights of officers and citizens. Lydia Wheeler writes in an article in The Hill about another poll done by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research and The Leadership Conference Education Fund, which found that 88% of Americans want police to be required to wear body worn cameras. 880 adults were polled from July 28 to August 2. Two out of every three adults said they feel the cameras would reduce police brutality. Also, 80% said the footage should be available to the public in order to hold police accountable for their actions, and 70% said officers should have to write their incident reports before reviewing the footage. This data shows that the majority of the public finds the cameras a necessary and acceptable method to ending police and civilian misconduct. The main concern of the public is that the officers are well trained on when it is right to use the cameras. Wheeler also writes that 2/3 of those polled "strongly believe that officers should work with their local communities and civil rights advocates to establish clear guidelines on how the cameras and the footage from them is used" (Wheeler).

Police forces all over to globe are beginning to integrate new technology into their procedures that improve the efficiency of their job. NSW Police force posted an unbiased video in 2015 which informed the public of their commitment to improving on the legal system. This is an informational video that explains their experiences with body-worn cameras, a technology they recently adopted into their every day routines that has benefited them in several ways. Some of the benefits include "gathering and presentation of evidence, behavior modification of offenders, lower incidence or escalation of violence, increase in guilty pleas by defendants, increased time on patrol and less on paperwork, improved public cooperation and interactions with police, and improved officer conduct" (NSW). This video is good evidence that body worn cameras on police officers will improve behavior between police and civilians, as well as the efficiency of officers in their jobs and the judicial system in prosecuting criminals. 

The cameras are worn on the body of officers so "they can easily be seen and identified" (NSW). Officers aren't here to secretly record people. The features of the cameras used by the NSW Police include " a wide angle view, high definition audio and video, 30 seconds of back capture from recordings, and encrypted recording" (NSW). The wide angle view allows video to capture more than just what happens right in front of the officer, because often times there will be other things going on that the officers isn't dealing with at that moment. The high definition audio is important especially in the presentation of evidence where specific words or actions may need to be identified in the court of law. Sometimes the stories of officers and offenders may be disputable. For example, in cases such as Michael Brown's where bystanders' stories are different from that of the shooting officer, the video and audio evidence could reveal the truth.

 In a lot of these cases where there was no substantial evidence to defend the victim, the judges sided with the officer, whom they felt more comfortable believing. As bad as this is, especially in court where evidence should be the only decider of innocent or guilty, it has been happening for years. An article published by CNN quotes Robert Bogle, the president and CEO of the Philadelphia Tribune. He says, in reference to the consistency of police brutality in minority dominated cities, "we've been in business for 130 years" (McLaughlin). He adds that what news has been recently surfacing about police brutality, especially on African Americans, has been going on in Philadelphia for a long, long time. McLaughlin writes that "where a victim's race could affect a story's perceived veracity, video permits no such prejudice". This quote really encapsulates one of the major benefits to body-worn cameras. The black community has stepped up the most in advocating for change, and rightfully so. Kids in the inner city find themselves helpless when an officer claims something and they have nothing to prove themselves innocent. Bogle claims that "had there been no video evidence of Scott's shooting, the public might have believed that Officer Michael Slager's story that he'd been attacked and had no choice but to fatally shoot Scott" (). How can we sit aside and allow this to continue? They get away with murder because the badge gives them better judgment in court when there is no good evidence to make them wrong. Scotts life could not be saved, but thankfully there was video evidence and justice could be done to the officer that ended his life. In order to save many others like Scott, we need to make the necessary changes in procedures and training to deter such misconduct in the future. 

Police brutality has been supported by a biased legislative system. In 2015, an Oklahoma reserve sheriff's deputy, Robert Bates, made a mistake that would ultimately take the life of an Eric Harris, a man suspected of illegally selling a weapon. Thankfully, the altercation was being recorded by a body worn camera which was being used as part of the sting operation. In the video, multiple officers are seen holding the suspect down after he tried to sell a weapon to an undercover in a sting operation. As procedure follows, the officer announced he was going to deploy his Taser, but accidently pulled out his gun and fatally shot him in the back. When he was brought into court he plead not guilty to an account of second degree murder. To make matters worse, the judge granted Bates permission to vacation in the Bahamas in the time before his preliminary hearing. In further investigation, police found that Bates, a 73 year old at that time, had been illegally employed through false paperwork and the assistance of dishonest workers in the department. In situations like this, police are under a lot of stress and its quite understandable that they may make some mistakes on the job. But in this line of work, officers hold significant power and cannot afford to make mistakes like this where it can cost someone their life.

Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science institute, offers an explanation to the thought process of Robert Bates in this situation. He says "This is the slip and capture. Under time pressure to address a perceived threat, his intention to draw his Taser slipped off his agenda, so to speak" (Video Released of Deadly Police Shooting...). He even went as far to say that Bates is "a true victim of slip and capture. There's no other determination that I could come to" (Video Released of Deadly Police Shooting...). Clearly this means that training needs to improve, as Obama has called for. It isn't acceptable for an officer to mistaken one weapon of non-lethal force for a weapon of lethal-force in a situation involving an unarmed suspect. Moreover, departments need to evaluate those already employed consistently to keep them sharp and prepared to use their weapons rightfully. 

Freddie Carlos Gray, Jr. was in excruciating pain after being arrested by police for questionable reasons. Three officers on bicycles made the initial arrest. They admit he was complaining about asthma and wanted medical attention. Two other officers were sent to check on him in the back of the transport van. Somehow, neither the initial arresting officers, van driver, or officers that checked up on him were of any assistance to the dyeing man. Gray's autopsy revealed an 80% severed spine, which could have been obtained while he was under police custody. "Witnesses at West Baltimore Gilmor Homes, where he was arrested, saw they saw him beaten" (Baltimore Police Identify Officers...). If the officers had been equipped with body worn cameras, the case would have had a great bit of evidence to conclude the case. Instead, the six officers involved with Gray's arrest and death have been suspended but are still receiving pay. The prolonged and highly expensive case has caused the city of Baltimore to turn on itself. Violent riots broke out while I was attending an Orioles game. The stadium shut down, because the protest turned violent as crowds of Baltimore's citizens let their undeniable rage out in the streets. The events that have coincided from Gray's unjustified death are due to the lack of training and responsibility of officers. Yet, without solid video evidence, the real criminals are sitting at home collecting a check when they should be in jail.

The use of body-worn cameras could benefit the  relationship officers have with the public. Right now, people are scared of cops. "No matter how law abiding they may be, people are keenly aware that police have the power and the control, and thus they fear them. Few are entirely comfortable with their presence" (Holmes 47). Polls show that people want the cameras; they make them feel safer and protected from unlawful force. In the eyes of the officer, they are protected from any accusations by the people if their actions come into question. An article in The Huffington Post writes that a new study that involved officers with and without body-worn cameras has found that they have made a significant positive impact in police interactions with civilians. The conclusion was that "Many officers reported that the equipment changed citizen behavior and helped to de-escalate confrontations between civilians and police. They also said body cameras improved evidence collection, and helped them more accurately recollect events and fill out reports" (Study Show Less Violence...). According to Jennings, most officers didn't feel burdened by the body cameras. In conclusion, police departments need to be equipped with body-worn cameras if we are to protect the people of America.

