I was scrolling through my newsfeed this morning on Facebook and noticed where one of my Facebook friends had posted an article about a gun that takes a picture every time the trigger is pulled. We talked a little bit about how helpful of a tool this would be to local law enforcement and juries if tools like these were standard issue. Imagine how open and shut the Michael Brown verdict could have potentially been with a tool like this. I of course say that with no intention of trivializing his death in any way, naturally.

But then my friend and I got into the conversation of body cams. I brought up how I had read something months before the Michael Brown or Eric Garner cases had became such hot topic issues. An article on tumblr talked about a certain city, whose name I currently can’t recall, and how they had implemented body cameras on all of their police officers. If you were out in the field, you had your camera on. In that particular year, excessive force complaints dropped 70%.

My friend replied back saying that she had never heard of anything like body cameras before these recent excessive force cases came out. My question is why do journalists never talk about changes like these until after the fact? Clearly, there should be a degree of public interest in the issues that are being brought up, but violence from police has always been a complaint. Do journalists just ignore certain issues in lieu of others? Why?

Advertisements