One of those seminal events that a lot of people thought would make for safer and more civil interactions with police officers, was when bodycam videos became the norm within many police departments. After all, rogue cops or cops prone to being overly aggressive, would because of that bodycam video, no doubt, temper their responses, and thereby become less aggressive and combative with those that they are supposed to serve and to protect. Additionally, the public so dealing with police would also be less inclined to allow their emotions to escalate, by virtue of knowing that what they were saying and agitating about was also being recorded. The thing is, though that is supposed to be what would happen, the actuality is to a very large extent, somewhat different in interesting ways, then what was first envisioned.
It must be acknowledged that for one thing, bodycam videos and the recording so of, are not being live-streamed to the general public, but in actuality those bodycam videos are pretty much under the control of the police department; though, in theory, subject to public purview through open access records to such. What this really means, though, is that police departments to a very large extent, despite whatever laws are written, are going to take such video generated, and to the extent that they can control the narrative, do exactly that -- by not so timely releasing or by redacting or by conveniently losing, or by charging an excessive monetary amount, or by considering such as evidence for a potential case and thereby not making that video subject to release, or by the interminable delaying of those videos so requested by the public. In other words, just because something is recorded, doesn’t mean that the record will always be released, which signifies that not all bad actions by police officers are ever going to see the public independent light of day. This so signifies, that when police officers believe that a given action so taken may be a cause of concern, that they can get ahead of the curve, and thereby they do exactly that.
Additionally, there are plenty of people that when so being recorded, are prone to acting a part, in which, when this is done as part of a family video or whatnot, is perfectly fine. On the other hand, when police officers, make it their point to act a part, this is definitely not okay. For instance, when an officer, knows that they are using excessive force, they can, as part of exerting such force, say things such as, “stop resisting,” “put down that weapon,” “don’t kick at me,” and so on and so forth. The fact that these words were spoken and the fact that videos are subject to more than one interpretation, provides these police officers with the “cover” that these things may indeed have been occurring, even if, in fact, they were made up or exaggerated, in order to justify violent action taken against a given subject. That is to say, when a somewhat gullible juror who already believes in the necessity of law and order, hears something to the effect that someone being arrested, is resisting that arrest by the officer making that arrest, so heard and seen on that video, this may indeed be all that they need to hear or know, to completely justify, in their mind, every action subsequently taken to put down that purported resistance.
In short, to believe then, that every video so recorded tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth-- of which there is only one camera angle and the person closest to that camera can speak whatever words that they feel will help them sell the story that they are trying to tell, will lend itself to a distortion of the actual truth.