Last year, I sat and reviewed a podcast piece (nothing to do with 6 Jan 2021)....which had looped around three different body-cam videos of the same incident....from 3 police (each having a different end of the action).
It did tell the story (maybe a positive)....but you needed a guy who could piece the prospective of three cops at a 'problem'....each dealing with differing issues.
So I will say two facts over body-cam. First, it's not the great solution that people envisioned. It simply tells a story, after the event. Second, the more body-cam action you insert into a story....the more complicated the story becomes.
If you had some situation where 12 police are required to settle a ruckus, and six of them are carrying body-cam? Well....if this drags into a court case later....you end up with probably 15 hours of usable video from the six guys.
Then you drag the six cops into a court room and play the video....asking them what they thought they saw, and you get six differing perceptions.
It's like playing a hour-long Bonanza episode and asking twenty viewers to give an interpretation of the script, the action, and the dilemma left to 'Little Joe' and 'Hoss'.
I'm not saying body-cam video is a failure.....it just simply adds to a confusion factor, and makes a story complicated in the end.
Many people around the world continue to wonder, how on earth was it possible that in the greatest country in the world, in the most armed nation on the planet with the best and most expensive security agencies in the universe, one of the most important buildings was left unprotected and was easily taken over by protesters while the presidential election was being certified and the Vice President was in the building? Why is no serious investigation done to understand that security failure and hold accountable every person who was in charge that day? Isn't that the most important investigation to be carried out?
ReplyDelete