Uneven Playing Field

It's sad, but it's routine. There are times when context is omitted and only pretext remains. It may be intentional or it may be based on ignorance, but in either case it may lead to misleading conclusions.

For example there is much in the media on the topic that “Black Lives Matter.” But so do brown and white and any other lives. The latter, however, are not the concern of some groups who emphasize police “racism” – the killing of innocent black men by white police. But American society has been racist for hundreds of years and the police often reflect society's views – even if only in a minority of cases. It shouldn't happen at all. The numbers are small, but one is too many. Mention is rarely made however of the numerous killings of blacks by blacks, or of the killing of whites by blacks. And the assassination of the police doesn't usually last more than one news cycle. But the protests of the killing of blacks by white police is usually extended along with the riots (and associated deaths), even though such tragedies are not common.

Portions of the incidents are often recorded on cellular telephones by witnesses who are presumed to be unbiased, and whose evidence is conclusive. These videos are often circulated on social media and “go viral” before any police report is filed, and the officer convicted in the public's mind before he has a chance to say anything. Indeed, police regulations regarding the release of information related to ongoing investigations may prevent him (or her) from defending himself publicly. And when the eventual trial comes (if the officer isn't indicted the community will protest loudly to the press) the memory of the officer, and his report, are attacked as self-serving and not to be believed. The report came long after the incident and the officer was under stress during the confrontation. They cannot be taken seriously. Only the witnesses are reliable, and only the evidence they present can be trusted.

As a partial solution of the problem the New York City Police Department will, next week, be outfitting its officers with body cameras to record such incidents. (It is also possible that knowledge of the cameras will lessen the number of incidents because those few who aren't following the rules will know that they are being monitored.) This policy, however, has provoked further protests and there are demands that implementation be delayed. For example, the ACLU and others insist that there be no viewing of tape by the officer before a report is written, and memory aided by documentation shouldn't be allowed. The previous regulation was written when officers had only their memories on which to rely. The memories were challenged. And (often incomplete) community videos and testimony were given greater weight than the assertions of the police. Now that memory can be aided there is the possibility that the video and the report will correspond. Memory will be more accurate and lawyers will have less opportunity to question it or to find a discrepancy between the written report and the video. Those using their 'phones have no restrictions of this sort and can select what they choose to film, what they submit to lawyers, and what they put on the internet. And when they do so.

Early recording would be helpful because it may provide documentation of what happened before the home-made videos were turned on to record the “unjustified” police violence. There has never been great concern about the videos submitted by “uninvolved” bystanders – what they included and what they omitted. What they contain is sufficient to convict. What happened prior to their being turned on is obvious. Now that the police may have cameras it is self-evident that they should be turned on at the beginning of the incident so that nothing is missed, and if it isn't, the entire recording is suspect. The argument seems logical, even though there had been no concern by protesters about what may previously have been omitted in the videos of “witnesses.” And there is no concern that stopping to turn on a camera at the very beginning of an incident may result in its intensification or danger to those involved.

What results is a protest against what should help in the proper function of the justice system. Whom does that help? The protesters, and the lawyers seeking either conviction of the police or large monetary settlements. Perhaps they are justified, but limiting the opportunity to obtain unbiased evidence is not the way to accomplish legitimate goals. Both the public and the police are entitled to a fair system and a level playing field.

April 20. 2017