Charlotte Shooting Shows Why Video Transparency Is Vital

The shooting death of Keith Lamont Scott by police in Charlotte, North Carolina, Tuesday is a case study in why it’s important for police departments to have good policies surrounding body cameras—in particular around the release of video to the public.

We have called for most video recorded by police body cameras to be kept from the public because of the serious privacy issues that the devices raise, and the fact that the vast majority of video that is recorded is of no public importance. However, where there is a use of force or a complaint against an officer, we think it’s vital that video be available to the public. The public’s interest in monitoring how its police officers are using force is overwhelming. That is doubly so in cases of deadly force—and why we are calling for Charlotte police to immediately release what they have in this incident. As my colleague Gilles Bissonnette of the ACLU of New Hampshire has put it, a video of police use of force

directly illuminates how police operate, helps identify potential misconduct by individual officers and poor policies or training by agencies, and allows the public to hold civic leaders accountable for problems. On multiple occasions, videos of police shootings have not only shed light on how and when police elect to use force, but also on police misconduct.

Protests and/or unrest after a shooting happens when a community a) suspects that an injustice has been done and b) lacks confidence that justice will be achieved by the institutions that are supposed to provide it. Both of those suspicions are all too often well-founded. A police chief can get up and assert that a shooting victim “exited his vehicle armed with a handgun as the officers continued to yell at him to drop it,” but in this day and age everyone has heard such stories before only to have them revealed later to be complete lies. A police chief may have nothing to go on except the word of his officers, and be compelled to support them—but unfortunately we have all learned we cannot trust that word. And, even where a police shooting is legal, that is not the same thing as a police shooting being necessary, due to the unfortunate state of the law in this area.

Release of the video does at least two things:

  1. It can at a minimum bring some clarity to what took place—in other words answer the first question above of whether an injustice has been done. In many cases the circumstances of a shooting will remain ambiguous and subject to differing interpretations, but in other cases (such as the shooting of Walter Scott in South Carolina) an injustice will be plain for all to see. If a video shows clearly that a police use of force was reasonable, that is likely to dampen the anger of a community. If it clearly shows that a use of force was illegitimate, on the other hand, that is likely to spark national outrage and force a police department to seek justice through murder charges, as happened in the Walter Scott case. That can help reassure a community that justice will be done.
  1. Release of a video can at least suggest that a police department is committed to transparency and to letting the chips fall where they may rather than closing ranks to protect its officers regardless of what they may have done. It can do this even if a video is inconclusive or ambiguous and subject to different interpretations.

Police today often complain that a pall of suspicion has fallen upon their whole profession. If that’s true, it’s not because of a few “bad apple” police officers. I think everybody understands that when you’re dealing with any large group of people (in the case of sworn law enforcement officers in the United States, over 900,000) there will be some bad apples. If law enforcement dealt with them fairly and decisively, those individuals would not taint the entire profession. But all too often it looks like “the fix is in”—that the problems are cultural or systemic, that the police get special treatment with regards to justice, that the police cannot police themselves, and that nobody else is doing so.

It is within this frame that people are likely to view police refusal to release video of a critical incident. Are police and prosecutors playing it straight, ready to let the chips fall where they may when it comes to investigating a potentially criminal police action and bringing justice? Or are they circling the wagons to protect one of their own? When Americans suspect they’re seeing the latter, that’s when they’re likely to hit the streets.

Unlike in Charlotte, the police chief in Tulsa at least made a start toward conveying the former stance this week by speedily releasing the video he had of the shooting of Terence Crutcher even though it did not look great for his department. Police often claim that they can’t release video due to an “active investigation,” but as I have argued elsewhere, the purposes behind that exception to transparency are rarely served in the case of police shooting video for more than a short period of time.

As the ACLU of North Carolina points out, an unfortunate new North Carolina law will actually block police from releasing body camera video without a judge’s order—but that law doesn’t take effect until October 1. In the meantime, the Charlotte police should release whatever video and audio recordings they have of this incident.

Obviously release of video is not a magic solution. A particular incident is often just the spark that ignites a dry underbrush of grievances that has grown up for many years. Some communities have many reasons to start protesting—grievances that run deep and involve many problems besides shootings. At the same time, transparency is a big part of the problem, and in today’s world release of video is a crucial part of that transparency.

View comments (10)
Read the Terms of Use


Reality has once again eluded the writer

Mary Gerdt

If there can be nothing gained to the public, don't just publish violent videos that show actual reality. Review for job performance, training. Show to families. Respect our right not to see every bad interaction with police.


I completely agree we don't need to broadcast the videos far and wide. We need less of that, not more. With that said, I also completely with the author's main point -- the transparency needs to be there. Outsiders need to be able to see, in your own words, the ACTUAL reality, not the reality that the police themselves offer us. They aren't always the same thing. This doesn't mean we should allow the media to broadcast these videos, but they should still be available for review by anyone who wishes to see what really happened. Oversight is absolutely critical with any institution that can so profoundly affect the lives of citizens, and the citizens themselves need to be the ones doing this oversight. These agencies ultimately work for us. It's OUR responsibility to make sure they aren't abusing their authority.

Jeff A. Rayner

Since when do the Police NOT declare evidence that would exhonerate their officers. There was no gun. If there was a gun they would have trotted it out with his fingerprints on it.
Todays release of his wife's video, does not show the much touted "gun" at his feet.Where did that one come from?
We are at a sorry state with police protectionism, as we have been for a long time.
I am a proud veteran and a proud American that is happy to see the police being held to account for their actions. It is time for corrections to their culture.


Privacy issues are irrelevant if the victim or the victim's family request release of the footage.


There was a gun..IN his wife recording "Don't,take that out there she says" he had gun..


This is a balanced, well-written article, stating the situation. Maybe even under-stating it. We don't need these videos running on TV but we do need to be able to find them. The ACLU has some on their YouTube channel and should have more there.

Among other reasons, we who are white are learning the truth of what blacks have long maintained: police pick on them, believe the worst about them and there are very good reasons for their fear of the police!


Please America. Look at the body cam footage. Next look at the clip where the gun is lying. The body cam moves across the area where the gun is located. Does anyone else not see the gun? Nobody on the body cam footage picks up the gun. The camera on the patrol car dash cam does not show anyone picking up the gun before the body cam moves across the area where it was pictured. When was the gun placed there? This is why I don't trust the police. Do you remember making up things as a child to get out of trouble? Then we grew up and got HONEST. When are the police going to police themselves and make the other cops accountable and grow up like the rest of the world!!!

Michael Hastings

Is it the Union's position that HB 972 will stand up to challenge?

king root

king Root is maybe the most well known establishing application ever. What makes it so mainstream is it's 'A single tick root' highlight. With King Root, Android clients would now be able to root their telephones with one basic snap. Ruler Root App is accessible for both Android and Windows working frameworks. Along these lines, download King Root for Android, PC and get the best establishing knowledge. Ruler Root is just perfect with Android gadgets. Along these lines, kindly don't introduce the King Root APK 2017 record on another working frameworks since it won't work. The word 'Establishing' for the most part implies opening a gadget from it's points of confinement. So in Android, establishing implies opening the OS from whatever the limits the versatile maker has composed on it. By doing this, we will now have an OS like that of Windows regarding adaptability and highlights. In Windows, we can download any number of outer applications. Also in the wake of establishing Android telephones, they end up noticeably adaptable giving us a chance to introduce our own particular applications that will open the genuine capability of Android

Stay Informed