#AMBAUSB POLICE BODY WORN CAMERA DRIVERS DRIVER#

Over the past few years the NSWPF has initiated the Body Worn Video Project and has successfully trialled BWV Camera technology at two Local Area Commands. It will also provide police with the ability to present visual and audio evidence at court. The introduction of the Body-Worn Video (BWV) equipment will allow police officers to gather information and evidence as it happens. Sources of video content available include: Police Forces worldwide have actively used video evidence to support criminal investigations and prosecutions at court. Participate in this research project by visiting Participation in completing the online survey is anonymous and it will not be possible to identify your answers. If you’d like more of these kinds of quizzes and deep coverage of race and ethnicity, sign up for our Race/Related newsletter. Given that, and looking back at the videos and this experiment, has your view of policing and the role of video changed? Read responses from other quiz-takers then add your own. “They expect it to be a broad solution for the problem of police-community relations, when in fact it’s just a tool, and like any tool, there’s a limited value to what it can do.” “People are expecting more of body cameras than the technology will deliver,” Professor Stoughton said. In San Diego, complaints about officers fell 40.5 percent and use of “personal body” force by officers dropped by 46.5 percent after officers adopted body cameras, according to a 2015 report from the city’s police department.īut Professor Stoughton said that as such videos become more commonly used in court to either bolster or dispute the accounts of police officers, people must be careful how they interpret the footage, keeping in mind the cameras’ limits and viewers’ biases.

#AMBAUSB POLICE BODY WORN CAMERA DRIVERS DRIVER#

While Professor Stoughton’s work did not seek to determine how the race of the driver affected viewers’ conclusions, numerous studies have shown that some sort of conscious or unconscious bias is present in all of us, including law enforcement.īody cameras can have a positive impact. “People disagree about policing and will continue to disagree about exactly what a video shows.” “Our interpretation of video is just as subject to cognitive biases as our interpretation of things we see live,” Professor Stoughton said. This confirms what Professor Stoughton has found in his own presentations with judges, lawyers and students: What we see in police video footage tends to be shaped by what we already believe. People who generally distrust the police 0 % Rather, the focus will be on whether the officer’s conclusions and actions were reasonable. In court, “the question in those cases won’t be whether the officer was correct,” Professor Stoughton said. The bystander and the officer provide vastly different takes on what happened during the chase above.

“When video allows us to look through someone’s eyes, we tend to adopt an interpretation that favors that person,” Professor Stoughton said, explaining a psychological phenomenon known as “camera perspective bias.” These details were not captured by the police body camera, though, revealing another important point: Body cameras prioritize the officer’s point of view. It showed that the suspect fell because the officer shot him with a taser. It showed that the suspect ran when he saw the officer touch his gun. The bystander video did clarify some other dilemmas, though. Sometimes police video footage cannot answer the most pressing questions. Some of you probably noticed that and wished we had an answer along those lines, but that lack of certainty is part of the point. Professor Stoughton, who plays the officer in all these videos, said that neither clip actually shows whether the suspect was reaching for the gun.

Ambausb police body worn camera drivers