Candid Shots and Cops
When I first became a police officer in 1970, sometime an officer would apply a tongue lashing to a young juvenile offender rather than arrest him for a minor offense.
The youth of the day had a little more respect for the police, or perhaps they feared the law more so than the present generation of young folks and some older ones too.
It was also not unusual for a mouthy and unruly offender who resisted arrest to get an extra jab from a frustrated officer to cool him/her off.
Little hoopla or fanfare was made about such things.
However, things have changed drastically since that day and now offenders show little fear or respect for the police and with the advent of almost ubiquitous cameras in every hand, police are often caught having emotional outburst on suspected offenders.
In a highly technological age, where almost 70 percent of the U.
S.
population had cell phones at the end of 2005 (Cellular Telecommunication and Internet Association's Study, April 2006) and have increased significantly in 2009, it is increasingly easier to capture images of activity as they occur.
The latter is due to optional and standard features on cell phones such as video and still cameras.
The recent photo and video images of the Miracle on the Hudson, U.
S.
Air commercial airliner's water crash provide testament to the semi-omnipresent nature of cameras and camera capable cell phones.
We've become familiar with the ever-present news helicopters that capture high-speed pursuits (O.
J.
Simpson's infamous low speed chase comes to mind, 1994), traffic crashes and other police and fire activity.
Law enforcement has made use of video recording devices in police vehicles and governmental entities have put surveillance devices along highways, traffic signaled controlled intersections and other areas to assist with safety and security by catching traffic offenders and criminals.
Such devices used for public safety have proven to be very beneficial to law enforcement.
However, snagged photos and videos of law officers involved in questionable enforcement activity have caused some citizen uproars and outcries, led to extensive investigations and explanations, and some major monetary settlements by governmental entities.
Most of America is familiar with the LAPD's encounter with Rodney King, 1991 and the subsequent video taken by a private citizen that emerged, leading to civil unrest and a dark chapter that never seemed to end for Los Angeles.
The latest incendiary police incident camera recording with a cell phone by a bystander, occurred in Oakland, California and involved a young transit police officer, who fatally shot a suspect (Oscar Grant) in the back as he laid prone on an Oakland subway platform (January 1, 2009).
Oakland, a city that has a history of violence and civil unrest is now in the throes of uncertainty and a major $50-million lawsuit on its hands.
One would wonder if the incidents recorded by these candid cameras bespeak the typical action, left unrecorded, of police officers when they encounter physical and verbal unruly subjects.
I would think not, as the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers are not prone to excessive force.
Police officers are trained to use the force that is commensurate with the action of the subject, following what is considered a use of force continuum.
The measure essentially requires an officer to shed his/her personal emotions and act according to the established acceptable guidelines.
This restraint of emotions while dealing with a mouthy, physically resistive subject is difficult to do, since the adrenalin released during such an encounter will automatically bring out one's emotions.
The latter is the reason that officers receive an inordinate amount of training, especially in the use of force and it is reinforced every year with mandatory retraining.
Unfortunately, a relative few officers do succumb to their emotions and use excessive force when provoked or just because of a mean spirit.
In the majority of these cases, it is not the camera's eye that finds them; it is the checks and balances incorporated in organizational self-inspections, such as the Early Warning System (EWS).
EWS is an accounting and review of all uses of force incidents that begin at the first line of supervision and end with the top law enforcement executive.
Most progressive law enforcement agencies have some type of use of force review process (name may be different, but the purpose is the same).
If an officer has an unusually high number of uses of force, he/she is flagged and the officer is interviewed and the incidents are monitored to determine if there are improprieties.
The officer may require no attention and the situations could be all in the normal course of duty, or the officer may need remediation in dealing with the public or an assignment change due to being in a "hot" zone for too long.
The worst-case scenario is termination if the uses of force cannot be justified and are excessive and these do occur far more frequent than what the camera catches.
So, does the new age of candid cameras work? There is an inherent weakness with candid shots and that is because more than naught, the shot captured by the camera usually leave out crucial parts, such as what caused the incident and the officer(s) reaction.
What the public sees is rarely the whole story, even when the camera captures beginning to end.
The media will aide in revealing the sensational side, due to air time constraints, but the public is left with a nauseating taste, which can hype up negative sentiments about the police and lead to protests and finally civil disobedience that we have had in the past.
The bottom line is that most officers do not have a propensity for violence in response to the belligerent or violent subjects that they encounter.
Police have broad discretionary power and they exercise that power with considerable restraint-not because a camera may be present, but because they are carefully selected after an extensive screening process and some extensive training and continuous retraining.
The latter is far better at insuring quality service from law enforcement officers than any candid camera shot.
The youth of the day had a little more respect for the police, or perhaps they feared the law more so than the present generation of young folks and some older ones too.
It was also not unusual for a mouthy and unruly offender who resisted arrest to get an extra jab from a frustrated officer to cool him/her off.
Little hoopla or fanfare was made about such things.
However, things have changed drastically since that day and now offenders show little fear or respect for the police and with the advent of almost ubiquitous cameras in every hand, police are often caught having emotional outburst on suspected offenders.
In a highly technological age, where almost 70 percent of the U.
S.
population had cell phones at the end of 2005 (Cellular Telecommunication and Internet Association's Study, April 2006) and have increased significantly in 2009, it is increasingly easier to capture images of activity as they occur.
The latter is due to optional and standard features on cell phones such as video and still cameras.
The recent photo and video images of the Miracle on the Hudson, U.
S.
Air commercial airliner's water crash provide testament to the semi-omnipresent nature of cameras and camera capable cell phones.
We've become familiar with the ever-present news helicopters that capture high-speed pursuits (O.
J.
Simpson's infamous low speed chase comes to mind, 1994), traffic crashes and other police and fire activity.
Law enforcement has made use of video recording devices in police vehicles and governmental entities have put surveillance devices along highways, traffic signaled controlled intersections and other areas to assist with safety and security by catching traffic offenders and criminals.
Such devices used for public safety have proven to be very beneficial to law enforcement.
However, snagged photos and videos of law officers involved in questionable enforcement activity have caused some citizen uproars and outcries, led to extensive investigations and explanations, and some major monetary settlements by governmental entities.
Most of America is familiar with the LAPD's encounter with Rodney King, 1991 and the subsequent video taken by a private citizen that emerged, leading to civil unrest and a dark chapter that never seemed to end for Los Angeles.
The latest incendiary police incident camera recording with a cell phone by a bystander, occurred in Oakland, California and involved a young transit police officer, who fatally shot a suspect (Oscar Grant) in the back as he laid prone on an Oakland subway platform (January 1, 2009).
Oakland, a city that has a history of violence and civil unrest is now in the throes of uncertainty and a major $50-million lawsuit on its hands.
One would wonder if the incidents recorded by these candid cameras bespeak the typical action, left unrecorded, of police officers when they encounter physical and verbal unruly subjects.
I would think not, as the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers are not prone to excessive force.
Police officers are trained to use the force that is commensurate with the action of the subject, following what is considered a use of force continuum.
The measure essentially requires an officer to shed his/her personal emotions and act according to the established acceptable guidelines.
This restraint of emotions while dealing with a mouthy, physically resistive subject is difficult to do, since the adrenalin released during such an encounter will automatically bring out one's emotions.
The latter is the reason that officers receive an inordinate amount of training, especially in the use of force and it is reinforced every year with mandatory retraining.
Unfortunately, a relative few officers do succumb to their emotions and use excessive force when provoked or just because of a mean spirit.
In the majority of these cases, it is not the camera's eye that finds them; it is the checks and balances incorporated in organizational self-inspections, such as the Early Warning System (EWS).
EWS is an accounting and review of all uses of force incidents that begin at the first line of supervision and end with the top law enforcement executive.
Most progressive law enforcement agencies have some type of use of force review process (name may be different, but the purpose is the same).
If an officer has an unusually high number of uses of force, he/she is flagged and the officer is interviewed and the incidents are monitored to determine if there are improprieties.
The officer may require no attention and the situations could be all in the normal course of duty, or the officer may need remediation in dealing with the public or an assignment change due to being in a "hot" zone for too long.
The worst-case scenario is termination if the uses of force cannot be justified and are excessive and these do occur far more frequent than what the camera catches.
So, does the new age of candid cameras work? There is an inherent weakness with candid shots and that is because more than naught, the shot captured by the camera usually leave out crucial parts, such as what caused the incident and the officer(s) reaction.
What the public sees is rarely the whole story, even when the camera captures beginning to end.
The media will aide in revealing the sensational side, due to air time constraints, but the public is left with a nauseating taste, which can hype up negative sentiments about the police and lead to protests and finally civil disobedience that we have had in the past.
The bottom line is that most officers do not have a propensity for violence in response to the belligerent or violent subjects that they encounter.
Police have broad discretionary power and they exercise that power with considerable restraint-not because a camera may be present, but because they are carefully selected after an extensive screening process and some extensive training and continuous retraining.
The latter is far better at insuring quality service from law enforcement officers than any candid camera shot.