BODY CAMERAS, CONTINUED FROM PAGE 29
In one of these case studies from a Sept. 25,
2011 fatal police shooting in Oakland, California,
Officer Brian Franks, wearing a body camera,
ends up on foot pursuit after a suspect flees from
a traffic stop. The officer later recalls that the suspect turned around with a silver revolver,
prompting Franks to fire two-to-three times.
At 30 frames per second (fps) – about the
standard for movie theater film projectors –
watching the replay is like watching the middle
of a Jason Bourne fight scene; it’s basically a blur.
To emphasize his point, after a single view
(typically how many times an angry civilian will
watch a “police brutality” video) Rains asked
the crowd: “What was the suspect wearing at
the beginning of the video? How about at the
end? Did you see the dog? Not at 30 frames per
second you didn’t. (So just because the) camera
doesn’t see the revolver, the officer does. Video
doesn’t tell us what happened – it gives us circumstantial evidence of what happened.”
In fact, upon slowing down the video, multiple clues point to the presence of a gun, and the
extended video after the shooting confirmed it.
“I never thought of video that way,” admitted
Essex County Corrections Local 382 member
Rich Joyce. “But breaking it down like that you
see how it could actually help us on the PBA
side with investigations against our own members. You can see maybe this is what he was trying to do. This was the officer’s intent.”
Another case study focused on the trial of Bay
Area Rapid Transit Officer Johannes Mehserle,
who on Jan. 1, 2009 in Oakland, while being
recorded by several bystanders from various
vantage points with varying speed (fps) cameras,
shot a suspect in the back that appeared to be in
a surrendered position on the ground.
Rains methodically dissected a timestampsynced matrix of the six videos used in the trial,
and presented multiple pieces of evidence that
proved Officer Mehserle intended to use his
Taser on the suspect, but accidentally pulled his
pistol and unintentionally used lethal force.
Some clues from the video matrix that led to
this conclusion involved differentiating the
timestamp of the fatal shot between time
2:11:03 a.m. and 2:11:03:200 a.m.; observing
Mehserle’s “reflective actions” of shock in the
instant post firing; and direction of the bullet’s
trajectory that conflicted with the public
“knowledge” that the suspect was in fact submitting.
This clarification based upon 300 hours of
analysis over seemingly minutia resulted in a
not-guilty verdict to the murder charge thrown
hastily at the officer following public pressure as
a result of the virality of the bystander videos
(one was sold to the press for a mere $200 and
was downloaded 850,000 times within three
hours).
“It’s a game-changer... knowing that the different frames on different cameras can show a
different side or view of what actually transpired,” noted Mountainside Local 126 State
Delegate Michael Jackson.
Rains concluded by listing some of the most
important issues to consider as mandatory
body camera policies are unveiled. Questions
still troubling officers nationwide include:
When should cameras be active? What rights
do officers have to view these videos – before or
after preparing reports? How long will videos be
stored and who will host them? Can videos be
used for training purposes and how will personal information be handled? Who will pay for
equipment, storage, training and overtime for
reviewing videos? And arguably most importantly: Will the public be educated as to the limitations of video evidence and why officers’
accounts differ from the video?
“I think the PBA having this gentleman down
to speak is going to be instrumental in having
them formulate proper rules and regulations
that officers have to abide by and the laws set
forth,” Jackson says. “I think this will open
everybody’s eyes that a five-second video possibly shows that there’s more to the story, that
wh