There was once a time when the use of photography and video recording was exclusive to media outlets. This day has come and gone. We live in a society where virtually everyone has access to at least one recording device, some of which have the ability to post pictures and videos directly to the Internet, even as images are simultaneously being recorded.
This means every action can be made available immediately for public judgement and scrutiny, and one of the most controversial uses of this new technology is in regards to law enforcement.
Law enforcement professionals have always been under a great deal of public scrutiny. As the son of a now retired 23-year veteran of the Vancouver Police Department, I grew up hearing about how much officers were responsible to the citizens they served and protected — at least as far as my dad was concerned.
I have also spent the last six years working as a security officer at Rogers Arena, the home of our Vancouver Canucks. While I am not officially considered law enforcement, I am in charge of enforcing the rules of the building, so there are some relevant crossovers.
I have been videotaped and photographed numerous times at the arena during the course of my duties. We were taught to expect this, and trained to respond in an appropriate manner. Like the police, we have no legal authority to prevent recordings of incidents, and we did not attempt to do so. Instead, we were trained to shape the narrative being created in a way that would help the audience comprehend what was happening.
Video recordings can provide a valuable perspective when evaluating police conduct.
Unfortunately, one of the problems with the widespread use of video and photography by the public is that it very rarely paints the whole picture. In most cases, the cameras rarely capture the individual we are dealing with has throwing the first punch or making the threatening remark that requires us to intervene in the first place. The only way to measure if the level of police force is appropriate is to have all the information, which we do not get from many of these videos.
While I will not deny that police brutality does happen, in many instances the accusation stems from a lack of knowledge or understanding of the situation. Viewers do not get the full picture and, as a result, make assumptions that do not always reflect reality.
I feel that we need to have an understanding of why some officers react negatively to being videotaped while making an arrest or during other incidents. Imagine yourself at your own workplace. It is an average day when, out of nowhere, something goes horribly wrong. Now imagine yourself trying to deal with what is now a highly stressful situation, while 20 people you’ve never seen before show up and start recording you.
I’m guessing you would be pretty upset, and would probably ask them to turn their cameras off despite having no legal right or authority to do so. This is not an attempt to excuse the behaviour of officers who have threatened arrest for such things; but it is important to put yourself in their shoes and imagine what it must be like to have the most stressful and tiring portions of your work day filmed and posted online for public consumption.
Having said that, I do not believe that it is a bad thing for officers to be videotaped by the public. This practice can greatly improve the safety of our police force; after all, very few people are willing to commit a crime when they know they are on camera.
In many instances, accusations of police brutality stem from a lack of knowledge or understanding of the situation.
Ironically enough, controversy has risen in recent years over proposals that police officers should be allowed to carry pocket sized cameras to record interactions with the public and arrests from the officer’s point of view. Such video recordings can be extremely helpful in the prosecution of cases, and can provide a valuable perspective when evaluating police conduct.
Of the large body of evidence brought forth for the trials of the participants in the Stanley Cup riots of 2011, much was video and photographic evidence taken with smartphones and tablets. In my own experience, video footage of an incident that took place at Rogers Arena one night helped us defend against a legal suit for use of excessive force, as the video taken captured the entire interaction.
Furthermore, such videos — if used properly — can be highly effective training tools. I know during my training as a security officer, and also during my father’s time with the Vancouver Police Department, we would watch videos of different situations, both where things had gone right and things had gone wrong.
It is useful to be able to analyze situations secondhand and figure out how things could have been improved. Sometimes it can be helpful, especially for new recruits, to see what happens when things go wrong and how easily a dangerous situation can be avoided.
Easy access to recording devices is the reality of the world we live in. Since there is no legal recourse for officers, or anyone else for that matter, who are being recorded, it is important to respond appropriately. Telling people to stop filming or threatening to take cameras away will only make them want to film more.
New training is required for today’s officers. They need to be made aware of how to use these recordings to their advantage, and shape the story in such a way that the audience understands what is happening. And for all of you would-be documentarians out there, keep in mind that the people you are filming are doing a job that is difficult at the best of times. Take your recordings for the right reasons.
