:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/adn/G3IP6ZPPXFCNLPYR36XA4NGZD4.JPG)
Since May, ADN has covered the Anchorage Police Department's use of body cameras following four officer-involved shootings. Christopher Handy died in one of those incidents. Public demand to see the officers' body camera footage grew after it became clear that the officers' statements differed from footage from nearby surveillance cameras. Anchorage Police Chief Bianca Cross at the time said the body camera footage would not be released until all investigations by the state and the Anchorage Police Department were complete.
Cross pointed out the limitations of video.
“(The footage) does not capture many details, including what happened before the video was activated, what happened after the video was stopped, and what happened outside of the camera's view.”
She also mentioned something that wasn't conveyed in the video.
“(The video) doesn't capture the human element — the perceptions of the people involved, what they saw, what they heard and what they knew.”
There's another human truth that police body camera video can't reveal: how the person who watches the video feels. People's perceptions are not an objective reality, but their own reality. And they are influenced by many factors.
Body camera footage is impartial, albeit limited. But even when we strive to be impartial, we are often not. We have accumulated unique experiences that foster assumptions, motivations, and ideologies that influence our perception of reality. Two studies show this.
Researchers asked football fans from rival schools to watch video of a game between the teams from both schools. The home team saw the rival team violate the rules twice as often as the home team. Do fans take this team loyalty bias into account? Probably not. Both groups are convinced they are “right.”
In another study, two groups were asked to watch videos of political protests. One group was told that the protesters were demonstrating against abortion rights. The other group was told that the protesters were demonstrating against the military's “don't ask, don't tell” policy. Whether viewers perceived the protests as disruptive, intimidating or threatening depended on whether the protesters aligned with the viewers' own opinions.
Because many of us believe our perceptions are more objective than others', we conclude that people who disagree with us are unreasonable. Researchers call this the “illusion of objectivity,” and it's an illusion the U.S. Supreme Court has also experienced.
In Scott v. Harris (2007), the Supreme Court heard a case in which a police officer used deadly force against a speeding driver. The Court ruled in favor of the officer, stating that “the videotape…speaks for itself” and that “no reasonable jury” could conclude that the driver did not pose a deadly risk.
The researchers then showed the video to more than 1,000 members of the public and found that a significant minority disagreed with the Supreme Court's conclusion.
Further compounding the illusion of objectivity is our biased blind spot. We generally believe that we are less biased than other people, and that our opinions are influenced by objective factors and not by political ideology. This blind spot reinforces our view that people who disagree with us are unreasonable, ignorant, incompetent, or misinformed.
The stronger our beliefs are, the more weight we give to evidence that supports them and the more we filter out evidence that contradicts them.
Study participants were presented with positive and negative scientific evidence about the deterrent effect of the death penalty. They selectively believed the evidence that supported their existing beliefs, gave less or no credence to contradictory evidence, and then doubled down on their beliefs, becoming even more convinced because the science supported them.
It is not far-fetched to think that body camera video, like scientific evidence, can deepen previously formed opinions and prejudices.
These subjective perception factors (and evaluations) may explain why different media outlets report the news so differently and how audiences respond to those reports.
I'm all for police body cameras — 85% of officers surveyed support them — but body camera footage doesn't erase people's life experiences or the biases and perceptions that arise from those experiences.
Only police legitimacy can make that happen: For police body camera footage to be viewed in the same way, officers must be perceived as fair and impartial.
Research has shown that people care more about how police treat them than the outcome of their encounters: Officers who give citizens a voice, treat them with respect, make fair decisions, and explain why they act are perceived as exercising more legitimate authority.
Lt. Chad Gorden, a former commander of the Alaska Public Safety Academy, explained to me that it's not a matter of if a use-of-force incident will occur, but when. He urged recruits to view most police-citizen encounters as an opportunity to deposit or withdraw trust in the event that such an incident will be brought to justice.
Citizens should also examine their own prejudices before judging the police. When humans perceive a threat, they instinctively have a physical response of “fight or flight.” Police officers do not have the option to flee. They must face danger to keep citizens safe. We must be open-minded and tolerant of the situations police officers face when they use force.
The Rev. Jarrett Maupin, a community activist and police critic, agreed to participate in police force response training in Phoenix, Arizona. He was transformed by the real-life scenarios. After being shot in one scenario and shooting an unarmed man in another, the Rev. Maupin said his biggest takeaway was that
“My attitude has certainly changed after experiencing this. This happens in 10-15 seconds. People need to comply in their own interest.”
And police officers need to earn their legitimacy through daily trust in their interactions with citizens.
Police body camera video can be useful, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
Val Van Brocklin is a former state and federal prosecutor in Alaska who currently trains and writes about criminal justice issues across the U.S. She lives in Anchorage.
Opinions expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a wide range of viewpoints. To submit an article for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Submissions of under 200 words may be sent to letters@adn.com or click here to submit from any web browser. Read our complete guidelines for letters and commentary here.
