Body Cameras: The Case Of Michael Brown

1765 Words 8 Pages
Michael Brown, a black man, was brutally shot on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, by white police officer, Darren Wilson. Brown was an unarmed man who did commit a small crime, but nothing worth his brutal murder. There are different accounts about what truly happened during this violent encounter. The belief that discrimination was a part of this death led to protests by the black community and violence preceded this. This violence could have been stopped if officer Wilson had just worn a body camera. The black community believes that Brown’s death was caused because of racial discrimination, which is what started the protests. Just a week after the shooting of Brown, a curfew was set in the St. Louis suburb where he was shot because …show more content…
Police feel that if they are required to wear body cameras, it means the public and their bosses do not trust them. Even an article from the SIRS database called “Cleveland Case Shows How Body Cameras Can Help Police” says “public trust in police is at its lowest point in decades” (Gass). I see how this statement would be considered true, because implementing body cameras on policemen demonstrates the distrust everybody has for police officers. However, people do not have as much confidence in police officers as in earlier years because of what has happened lately with the shootings of unarmed people. The police officers who shot the unarmed black men have not gotten the conviction they deserved. Death is a serious matter, and police officers abused their role in society; the police officers who shot people to death have gotten off the hook, so of course the public has no trust in police at this moment. However, trust can be gained back by the public by having them wear body cameras. Another reason people are opposed to body cameras is because privacy issues. Opposers raise the question of, who knows when I am being videotaped? Another concern is how much of the video tapings will get released to the public if the police do film on private property. If the officers are filming on private property, then the next red flag people raise …show more content…
Though this may be a controversial issue, it is clearly in people’s best interest to take part in making body cameras a requirement for police officers. If this was a law put in place, it would help minimize misconduct by both police and civilians, and it would also create transparency. There may be a few downsides to police always wearing body cameras agreement issue, but the side favoring body cameras outweighs the negatives by a mile. Even our current president, Barack Obama, is aware of this controversial topic, and he supports the idea. According to the Journalist’s Resource website, “Obama [plans] to spend $75 million over three years to buy 50,000 body [cameras] for police organizations” (Kelsh). Also, according to the Washington Post, “the only specific policy Hillary Clinton endorses on her site are body cameras for police” (Balko). This is such an important issue that needs to be discussed, and even some of the most influential people in this country support the use of body cameras for policemen. The use of body cameras would be beneficial for the safety for the people of the United

Related Documents