Hoover 1
Addressing Police Brutality and Militarization in the United States of America
By: Caitlin Hoover
Due: November 5th, 2014
Professor Robert Christen
The Issue
Police brutality and militarization is an issue that has plagued the United States
of America for decades. Recently, after a police officer shot and killed an unarmed
African-American man in Ferguson, Missouri, police brutality has entered the spotlight
again through country wide protests; Some peaceful, and some erupting into violent
riots. Although it is clear not all police officers act out of conduct, the occurrences of
those who do seem to be growing or rather gaining more public attention. Even more
alarming than the rapidly increasing number of police brutality cases in the media, is the
fact that police brutality tends to be more commonly practiced on minority racial and
ethnic groups. For a country that has fought for years through the civil rights movement
and for the equality of all races, this is unacceptable. In the chilling words of a young
black man, “When I was 14, my grandfather sat me down for ‘the talk’ – not the birds
and the bees, but ‘the billy clubs and the bullets’ (Hobbs, 2014). Around the country,
minority groups are coming forward and talking about the necessity to teach their
children to fear police brutality and thus, police officers themselves. Trust between
American citizens and the police officers whom vow to protect them, has all but
deteriorated over the past few years.
Adding to the recent tragedies of unarmed racial minorities being killed in the city
of Ferguson is the way about which the Ferguson Police Department is addressing the
issue. During protests which erupted after unarmed Michael Brown was shot and killed
by a Ferguson police officer, police officers chose to address the protestors with tear
gas and use-of-force, as well as arresting non-violent protesters in what many are
claiming is an effort to deter people from protesting (CBS, 2014). Much of this use-offorce was backed up by military grade weapons and tear gas on unarmed civilians.
Hoover 2
Although racial minorities are not the only victims of police brutality and use-of-force, the
NYPD firearm discharge report of 2011 indicated over 50% of subjects fired upon by
police were African-American compared to about 15% of subjects fired upon by police
that were Caucasian (Lee, 2011). Even with countless statistics pointing to racial
profiling and multiple complaints filed regarding police brutality and use of military gear,
clear evidence of such is difficult to present in court investigations. This often leads to
police officers being cleared through the investigation and returning to service with little
to no accountability.
Along with police brutality is the issue of police militarization that has been
plaguing civilians across the United States, including those in the city of Ferguson. Most
recently in the news is the case of a toddler named Bounkham Phonesavanh being
severely injured when police officers began a raid into an Atlanta, Georgia home looking
for a suspected drug dealer and threw a military grade flash grenade into the baby’s
playpen, causing severe burns and hospitalization of the toddler; the suspect was not in
the vicinity at the time of the raid (Beasley, 2014). The grand jury investigation
concluded that this level of use-of-force with military grade weapons was not necessary,
however the police officers were let off with absolutely no consequences or
accountability for their actions. Clearly the issues of police brutality and militarization are
a threat to the well being of all American citizens, and therefore must be addressed in
an efficient manner.
Barriers
The issue of police militarization is one that must be addressed at the root of the
cause. In order to do this, new laws and policies must be implemented into the United
States government to restrict access to military gear for police departments; The main
restrictions and regulations being on tanks, armored military vehicles, military grade
sniper rifles, and gear that can be potentially life threatening to innocent civilians and
bystanders. This being said, addressing police militarization is very costly and therefore
this suggested approach will be centered on addressing police brutality and
unnecessary use-of-force, which will in turn bring national attention to the issue of police
militarization being used against civilians. Increased national attention will in the future
Hoover 3
bring about change regarding restrictions on police militarization. Due to the financial
restrictions of a million dollar budget, this project will address the issue of police brutality
on one specific police force; the Ferguson Missouri Police Department.
Suggested Approach
The project proposal will address the issue of police brutality and use-of-force
within a million dollar budget in the city of Ferguson, Missouri. With the funding, bodyworn cameras will be assigned to the 54 commissioned officers in the Ferguson Police
Department, who will be trained on the proper use and benefits of the high definition
cameras (City of Ferguson Police Department Administration Statistics, 2014). Part of
the funding will also be used to subscribe to an online storage account that securely
backs up the recorded material for later access when necessary for review, officer
misconduct investigations, and as evidence in the court of law. A project director will be
in charge of overseeing the project implementation, proper use of funding, training
officers to use the cameras properly, and to set up an online storage account for
recorded data.
How This Approach Has Worked in the Past
Unfortunately the use of body worn cameras has only been recently implemented
into a total of three police stations across the United States. However, the drastic
difference the implementation of these cameras is making can be seen throughout each
station. Recently in California at the Rialto Police Department, from February 2012 to
July 2013, body-worn high definition cameras were installed on the uniforms of all
officers who interact with witnesses, criminals, and the everyday public (this being a
total of 54 officers). Tony Farrar explains in his analysis of the overall successfulness of
the experiment that, “Shifts without cameras experienced twice as many incidents of
use of force as shifts with cameras” (Farrar, 2013). Interestingly enough this experiment
also found that in cases where use-of-force was used, the recorded officers only
reacted after the citizens physically assaulted them, and in reacting they used Taser
guns instead of their hand guns (Farrar, 2013). The Rialto Police Department
experiment also found that the number of complaints filed against officers drastically
Hoover 4
decreased from 0.70 complaints per 1,000 contacts with the public in the 12 months
prior to the experiment, to 0.069 complaints per 1,000 contacts during the trial in which
the officers were required to wear body worn cameras (Farrar, 2013).
Among the three police stations in the United States to implement body-worn
cameras was the Mesa Police Department in Arizona which recently announced the
expansion of their originally one year camera program to a five year program. During
their one year pilot program, the Mesa Police Department found, “officers equipped with
the on-officer body cameras experienced a 40% decrease in complaints and a 75%
decrease in use of force complaints” (Acquire Media, 2014). Chief Frank Milstead of the
Mesa Police Department stated, “"The results from our initial body-worn camera pilot
were overwhelmingly positive and we are looking forward to seeing continued success
with this program as we deploy additional cameras to our officers” (Acquire Media,
2014).
The third police department to implement body-worn cameras is the Phoenix
Police Department in Arizona. While their results and feedback from the use of body
worn cameras has been extremely positive, it has been so in a different way. In several
specific investigations into police misconduct, the camera video has been available to
assist the investigation and ultimately clear officers of the accused misconduct. One
specific case took place in May 2013, “A physical encounter occurred between an
officer and a citizen. Following the encounter, the citizen made claims of racial profiling
and police brutality. Footage showed that nothing of the sort occurred. When an officer
misconduct issue arises, it is a big deal, so being able to quickly clear it up with BWV
[video evidence] proved a major advantage” (Lovell, 2014). In a second case during
July 2013, “An officer responded to call of a deranged man who got out of his car in the
middle of the road and assaulted someone. The video showed that the officer did not
use force, but instead immediately recognized a drug-fueled craze and asked for fire
department and ambulance assistance. The suspect later died while in custody.
Especially with in-custody death investigations, misconduct claims can be made; but in
this case, video showed the officers took all the right steps, had no liability, and no
lawsuit was filed” (Lovell, 2014).
Hoover 5
Although all three police departments that implemented body-worn cameras saw
positive results, there were a few issues to implementation that seemed quite universal
throughout all departments. Many police officers felt negatively in the beginning about
wearing the cameras as they believed it was intrusive on their privacy as well as the
privacy of citizens. In an interview with Commander Michael Kurtenbach at the Phoenix
Police Department, when discussing the video being used in an investigation which
ultimately ended in the termination of an officer acting against conduct he stated, “there
was a fear that management would use video to investigate officer behavior absent
complaint” and “officers had a fear of the unknown” (Kurtenbach, 2014). Other
perceived cons to implementing body-worn cameras are obstruction of citizen and
officer privacy, threats to officer’s health and safety, training and policy requirements,
and logistical and resource requirements such as storage of the recorded data (White,
2014).
Conclusion
In past cases when body-worn cameras were used, the positive results far
outweighed all possibilities of negative fallout. Body-worn cameras are a good
mechanism for helping both American citizens and officers from being wrongfully
accused or mistreated. Some of the main perceived benefits are: Increased
transparency and police legitimacy, improved police officer behavior, improved citizen
behavior, expedited resolution of citizen complaints/lawsuits, evidence for arrest and
prosecution, and an increased number of opportunities for police training (White, 2014).
With increased transparency and police legitimacy it will make getting away with
murder (possibly quite literally) much harder for police officers. With the knowledge of
being recorded and supervised police officers will in turn be deterred from committing
misconduct and acts of violence. In turn, citizens whom are aware they are being
recorded will refrain from using force against officers or committing self incriminating
acts. With video evidence, citizen complaints and lawsuits can be efficiently and
effectively investigated to assure proper consequence to those whom are guilty. The
recorded videos can also be accessed and used in court for prosecution of criminals
and substantiation of arrest. Last but not least, body-worn cameras provide real life
Hoover 6
footage of situations that police officers can learn from in training. This also provides the
opportunity for increased specialized training on how to handle difficult situations that
are not typically addressed in the officer rule book.
With the continued emergence of cases involving police brutality and
militarization, it is time for the United States of America to address the issue. The
growing distrust between the public and police officers threatens the sanctity of our
democracy and the well-being of all its citizens. One city that is currently in turmoil due
to these public-officer tensions is Ferguson, Missouri. By implementing body-worn
cameras into the everyday protocol of Ferguson Police Department officers, the lives of
the officers and citizens can be drastically improved. This project theorizes that bodyworn cameras will provide nothing but positive results for the United States and its
future in justice and crime prevention.
Hoover 7
Works Cited
Acquire Media. "Mesa Police Department Expands Body-Worn Video Program with
Taser's AXON Flex Cameras and Evidence.com." Taser International. Taser
International, 19 June 2014. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
<http://investor.taser.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=855552>.
"Administration." City of Ferguson Police Department. City of Ferguson, n.d. Web. 2
Nov. 2014. <http://www.fergusoncity.com/93/Bureau-of-Administration>.
Beasley, David. "Deputies Who Flashbanged Toddler Bounkham Phonesavanh Avoid
Charges." Huff Post Crime [Atlanta] 7 Oct. 2014: n. pag. Huffington Post. Web. 2
Nov. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/flashbanged-toddlerbounkham-phonesavanh_n_5943098.html>.
Crimesider Staff. "Some Questioning Latest Round of Ferguson Arrests." CBS News 3
Oct. 2014: n. pag. Crimesider. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/some-questioning-latest-round-of-fergusonarrests/>.
Farrar, Tony. "Self-Awareness to Being Watched and Socially Desirable Behavior: A
Field Experiment on the Effect of Body-Worn Cameras on Police Use-of-force."
Police Foundation: Advancing Policing through Innovation and Science. Police
Foundation, Mar. 2013. Web. 1 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-camera>.
Hobbs, Michael. "For One Young Black Man in Newark 'the Talk' Was About Police."
American Civil Liberties Union Blog of Rights. ACLU, 26 Sept. 2014. Web. 1 Nov.
2014. <https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-free-speech-racialjustice/one-young-black-man-newark-talk-was-about-police>.
Kurtenbach, Michael. Cameras Effect on Police Behavior. Dir. Charles Katz. ASU
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. ASU, n.d. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
<http://ccj.asu.edu/news-events/news/spi-phoenix-police-department-body-worncamera-project>.
Lee, Jaeah. "Exactly How Often Do Police Shoot Unarmed Black Men?" Mother Jones
Politics 15 Aug. 2014: n. pag. Mother Jones. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
Hoover 8
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/police-shootings-michael-brownferguson-black-men>.
Lovell, Steve. "Body-Worn (Video) Evidence." Evidence Technology Magazine Mar.
2014: 24-27. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/evidencetechnology/20140304/#/28>.
Miller, Lindsay, and Jessica Tollver. "Implementing a Body Worn Camera Program
Recommendations and Lessons Learned." United States Department of Justice.
USDJ, 2014. Web. 1 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf>.
National Police Misconduct Reporting Project. CATO Institute, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.policemisconduct.net/>.
White, Michael D. Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing the Evidence.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014. OJP
Diagnostic Center. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
<https://ojpdiagnosticcenter.org/sites/default/files/spotlight/download/Police%20O
fficer%20Body-Worn%20Cameras.pdf>.