Just "Requiring" Body Cameras is Not Seeing the Whole Picture

Many, including President Obama, have called for police to wear body cameras in the wake of Darren Wilson's killing of Michael Brown.  Others are skeptical, saying we need look no further than the death of Eric Garner to show that not even clear footage of a cop killing an unarmed man is enough to get an indictment in our system.  The criticisms as the relate to the Eric Garner situation are legitimate, and show why body cameras alone are not the solution.  Eric Garner's death shows we need other solutions in tandem with body cameras, like creating single term limits for prosecutors and eliminating qualified immunity in excessive force cases.   But body cameras are an important part of fixing this problem in the future and preventing prosecutors from hiding behind conflicting witness statements (which exist in most cases against civilians, which they have no problem prosecuting) as an excuse for not pressing charges.  But not just any body camera policy will do.  As has been proven by policies regarding recording police interrogations and cop car dashboard cameras, if the policies do not have strong enforcement mechanisms they will be meaningless.

Hands Up, Don't Spray: Peterson v. Kopp

One of the key legal doctrines that makes it nearly impossible to effectively police the police is the doctrine of qualified immunity.  Last week we discussed  Plumhoff v. Rickard, a recent United States Supreme Court Case that upheld this doctrine.  There is another recent case out of the federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (Ferguson, along with the rest of Missouri, falls within the 8th Circuit) that deals with this same issue.  This case is called Peterson v. Kopp, and its language and facts show exactly how far qualified immunity has gone. In this case the Court recognized that, even where officers use unreasonable force, qualified immunity can shield them from responsibility for their brutality.

Victim Blaming

Normally I am not a fan of the phrase "victim blaming."  All too often it is used by well meaning zealous advocates to silence any voice that speaks up for the rights of the accused or who asks reasonable questions about an accuser's version of events.  In some circles a call to reserve judgment or consider someone innocent until proven guilty gets one labeled as an "apologist."  That is wrong.  But there are legitimate cases of "victim blaming," and that sort of victim blaming is wrong.  An example of the difference is this:

• Actual Victim Blaming:  Believing a woman was "asking" to be sexually assaulted because she wore revealing clothing.
• Not Victim Blaming:  Choosing not to consider the word of an accuser alone to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty and should be punished.  

In the case of  Eric Garner's death we are seeing real and disturbing incidents of actual victim blaming that must be addressed head on.