Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[125]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[126]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[125]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-03-16 01:52:00.508
	1	+2017-03-16 01:52:00.0

Caselist.CitesClass[126]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,18 @@
	1	+Body cameras increase violence- studies prove.
	2	+Gershman 16 Jacob, analyst and journalist at WSJ, 8/12/16, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/08/12/study-links-police-bodycams-to-increase-in-shooting-deaths/
	3	+In the wake of high-profile police shootings, the Obama administration has encouraged local police departments to equip their officers with body-worn cameras. The devices, said Attorney General Loretta Lynch, “hold tremendous promise for enhancing transparency, promoting accountability, and advancing public safety.” A new study by Temple University researchers, however, suggests that the wearable video cameras may not lead to fewer police shootings of civilians, but may actually make officers more likely to use lethal force. Those are findings from a new working paper by Min-Seok Pang and Paul A. Pavlou of Temple University’s Fox School of Business. The scholars, who research the impact of information technology on organizations, drew heavily on the Washington Post’s tally of fatal police shootings in 2015 (986 deaths in total), among other national datasets. They write: Surprisingly, we found that the use of wearable video cameras is associated with a 3.64 increase in shooting-deaths of civilians by the police. We explain that video recordings collected during a violent encounter with a civilian can be used in favor of a police officer as evidence that justifies the shooting. Aware of this evidence, the officer may become less reluctant to engage in the use of deadly force…. This contradicts the expectation of many law enforcement officials and policymakers that video cameras would reduce incidents of use of deadly force. What’s more, they found that body cameras were associated with a larger increase in shooting deaths of African Americans and Hispanics than whites and Asians.
	4	+cameras don’t do anything—empirics prove
	5	+Ariel 16 Barak, chief analysist at the Cambridge Jerry Lee institute of Criminilogy, 4/5/2016, http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/do-police-body-cameras-really-work
	6	+Another common type of video surveillance, the one that has accompanied the proliferation of smartphones, might actually be more important. Video cameras are ubiquitous, and the video recording of engagements between police and public is incredibly influential, especially when misconduct is caught, be it the infamous beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles in 1991 or the killing of Eric Garner in New York City in 2014. These recordings certainly demonstrate the effect of cameras on public reactions to the police, having sparked the Los Angeles riots of 1992 and the Black Lives Matter movement of 2015. Given the notoriety of such videos, a camera at the scene of a police-public encounter ought, logically, to send out an accountability cue, eliminating feelings of anonymity on either side. There is no strong evidence, however, to support the conclusion that mobile-phone cameras deter officers from misconduct. The Garner incident is particularly telling in this regard: As clearly shown in the recording released to the media, officers were well aware of the cameras filming them (some of them looked directly at the cameraman), yet they still used a prohibited choke hold. Why? There are probably two reasons. First, the officers might have been aware of a camera, but it still didn’t really register. Here, as in many other highly charged encounters, people just don’t think much about all the cameras around them before making the decision to throw a punch or otherwise misbehave. Second, even if they are aware of being recorded, the parties involved might not perceive a strong possibility that the footage captured can and will be used to hold them accountable for any type of misconduct. Because it is not official evidence, the video from a civilian’s smartphone camera doesn’t seem to inspire concern that it will surface later.
	7	+Current police reforms like body cameras are superficial; without strong financial liability, they will only instill complacency
	8	+Hansford 14
	9	+Justin Hansford (Human rights activist and law professor at St. Louis University School of Law; graduate of Howard University and Georgetown University Law Center). “Why Police Body Cameras Won't Work.” Hartford Courant. 5 December 2014. http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/bc-body-cameras-wont-work-need-accountability-20141205-story.html
	10	+Lax laws prevent us from holding police accountable, not a lack of evidence. But the presence of police body cameras will simply lull the country into believing that we can solve the problems of racial profiling and police violence without holding police accountable for their actions. State excessive-force laws make criminal conviction of police officers for murder almost impossible; a police officer has nothing to lose by killing unarmed black men. Even in civil suits, officers are never personally financially responsible for paying for damages; state and local governments cover it for them. This is the textbook definition of impunity. In addition to their ineffectiveness, the information captured by body cameras raises serious questions about citizen privacy. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and many jurisdictions prohibit recording of a person without his or her consent if the surveillance takes place in an area of expected privacy. The big brother state stands in direct contradiction to the freedom from unreasonable searches that the Fourth Amendment guarantees us. President Obama isn't alone in his misguided approach. Across the country, local police departments are considering the use of body cameras and perpetuating the view that this will end police brutality. But if this country wants to get serious about this problem, we should do what government always does when it wants to alter behavior on a systematic level: Impose financial penalties
	11	+
	12	+Police control over camerawork reifies the oppression.
	13	+Beyond Body Cameras: Defending a Robust Right to Record the Police JOCELYN SIMONSON* Assistant Professor, Brooklyn Law School. © 2016, Jocelyn Simonson
	14	+Similarly, civilian control over access to the footage changes the function of the video in the public sphere. When police departments become their own gatekeepers, deciding what to release, when, and to whom, they remain in control of the narrative surrounding videos—solidifying, rather than dismantling, the traditional monopoly that police departments possess over the evidence of and narratives structuring their behavior on the street.40 In many states, police departments are the sole gatekeepers of the release of body camera footage. Police departments often require complicated discovery requests before the footage is released or refuse to turn over any footage at all.41 State legislatures around the country are moving to restrict access to body camera footage by exempting it from public records laws.42 By maintaining control over their body camera operation and footage, police departments are able to craft official narratives before handing over information to the public or to independent investigators. In August 2015, for example, the Oakland Police Department held an invitation-only screening of a video of a fatal incident, but refused to release that same video to the public or provide a full, unedited version.43 And the Chicago Police Department famously resisted releasing the footage of the police shooting of civilian Laquan McDonald, doing so only after losing a court battle in November 2015 and then carefully orchestrating the release of the video.44 When police departments control access to the footage and the narratives surrounding any release of the footage, they strengthen their own power over the people who interact with the police on those videos.
	15	+
	16	+Police control over camerawork reifies the oppression.
	17	+Beyond Body Cameras: Defending a Robust Right to Record the Police JOCELYN SIMONSON* Assistant Professor, Brooklyn Law School. © 2016, Jocelyn Simonson
	18	+Similarly, civilian control over access to the footage changes the function of the video in the public sphere. When police departments become their own gatekeepers, deciding what to release, when, and to whom, they remain in control of the narrative surrounding videos—solidifying, rather than dismantling, the traditional monopoly that police departments possess over the evidence of and narratives structuring their behavior on the street.40 In many states, police departments are the sole gatekeepers of the release of body camera footage. Police departments often require complicated discovery requests before the footage is released or refuse to turn over any footage at all.41 State legislatures around the country are moving to restrict access to body camera footage by exempting it from public records laws.42 By maintaining control over their body camera operation and footage, police departments are able to craft official narratives before handing over information to the public or to independent investigators. In August 2015, for example, the Oakland Police Department held an invitation-only screening of a video of a fatal incident, but refused to release that same video to the public or provide a full, unedited version.43 And the Chicago Police Department famously resisted releasing the footage of the police shooting of civilian Laquan McDonald, doing so only after losing a court battle in November 2015 and then carefully orchestrating the release of the video.44 When police departments control access to the footage and the narratives surrounding any release of the footage, they strengthen their own power over the people who interact with the police on those videos.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-03-16 01:52:01.803

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Victor Fu

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+WB Ray JG

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+63

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit Chen Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+ND - DA - Body Cameras Suck

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+UT