On Tuesday morning, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry declared that no state charges would be filed against the two Baton Rouge police officers who killed Alton Sterling in July 2016. After months of deliberating over visual evidence such as body cameras, Landry said officers Blane Salamoni and Howie Lake II were acting in a “reasonable and justifiable manner” when they shot and killed Sterling two years ago in front of a store where he used to sell CDs. As the slain man’s relatives decry Landry’s decision, it’s become distressingly clear once again that body cameras won’t fix police brutality.
Although there are two publicly recorded videos of Sterling’s death, there are another four videos compiled as evidence from the 2016 shooting. Out of those four, two are body camera recordings, according to CNN. Another video recording is from the store surveillance lens and the fourth is a dashboard video from the officers’ police mobile.
The Baton Rouge Police Department has not released any of the body camera videos or the dashboard video for public viewing. But the two public videos, taken by passersby, show Salamoni and Lake tackling Sterling to the ground shortly after Lake tased the 37-year-old man. The officers said that Sterling was armed (which is legal in Louisiana given open-carry laws) and claimed that they acted in self-defense. But witnesses, such as store owner Abdullah Muflahi, told WBRC reporter Kelsey Davis that Sterling was “confused” about the officers’ aggression, not hostile.
There’s a school of thought in the United States that says police body cameras will promote police accountability. The idea is that if officers have body cameras enabled, they are less likely to hurt civilians because they’re being recorded. Transparency, goes the theory, which was supported by Barack Obama, should be a product of such cameras.
But with the police killings of Alton Sterling, Eric Garner (whose killers were never indicted) and others, the idea falls flat on its face. In Garner’s case, body-cam footage failed to convince the New York grand jury to indict the NYPD officer who put a chokehold on the 43-year-old man. And even if the police body camera footage of Sterling’s killing was released, it’s unlikely it would have changed the outcome for officers Salamoni and Lake.
Research shows that trials and convictions for aggressive police officers are uncommon in the US. Body cameras were supposed to slow such aggression down, yet the violence continues. That’s because there are several problems with body cameras.
For one, body cameras are aimed at the citizens, not the officers. The angle doesn’t capture the police officer whose aggressive tone and stance might be causing the citizen to behave anxiously. It goes without saying that an angle sets the story, and a one-dimensional angle tells a one-dimensional story. Videos can perpetuate pervasive anti-black myths, and more importantly, they don’t address the problem with legal protections for police officers and how, as even federal prosecutors admit, such laws make it virtually impossible to indict brutal officers. On a sociological level, if this footage is released, it can become torture porn on social media networks where grisly images are retweeted and shared again and again.
All of this is to say, it is highly unlikely body cameras will end police killings. Visual proof, as we have seen in different instances, is not enough to protect citizens. America needs an honest reckoning with its institutions of law enforcement and their racist origins as slave patrols, coupled with a legal movement that reforms the laws that shield violent police officers time and again.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 7 days to add 432 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.