solved Leadership & Accountability: How effective are police officer body camera

Leadership & Accountability: How effective are police officer body camera initiatives impacting on policing leadership and officer accountability? Explain. (500 word minimum with supporting documents. 
Respond to two peers with 150 word minimum and supporting documents)
Peer 1:
hey pal, How are you? As I’m reviewing the attachments, here is the other peer threadA form of body cameras were first introduced in 2005 in the United Kingdom, but never really took traction until 2014. The public’s sentiment with body worn cameras was to keep cops more accountable for actions. Individuals within Law Enforcement felt a huge micromanaging of individuals and a sense that big brother would be watching at all times even when they were struggling with their duty belt in the bathroom. There is a saying that there is three sides to the truth, what each individual perceived and what actually occurred; body cameras merely provide an difference of perspective.Some of the reasons behind agencies mandating cameras are better transparency, increase the quality of evidence, officer safety, and liability reduction. Anytime an accusation of excessive force or misconduct on a person is claimed an investigation occurs and with the possibility of a law suit the payouts the city makes can be life changing money. In the initial rollout the Rio Alto and Las Vegas Metro Police saw a significant reduction in complaints filed against the department  (“Study: Police body-worn cameras reduce reports of misconduct, use of force,” 2017). People started realizing it was too easy for departments to pull the body camera footage and show them the film of their complaint, some individuals looked pretty foolish. This is not to say that every complaint was invalid, the body cameras make it easier and less investigative time to determine if police misconduct occurred and relieve them of duty. Some agencies such as the Washington D.C. police found no significant difference in use of force or officer complaints to assist in justifying the expense of body worn cameras (“Research on body-worn cameras and law enforcement,” 2017). Police departments spend from $300,000 to over 1 million just on the body cameras and programming.For leaders it is important to praise your subordinates both privately and publicly. As departments strive for community approval body cameras allow easier access to highlight good deeds of officers and broadcast it via social media or news stations (Erstad, 2016). This not only makes public relations easier and faster, but provides public accolades possibly boosting that officer’s morale in sometimes a morale destroying job.      While the biggest headache in law enforcement is the Monday morning quarterbacking that goes on, the cameras can be used as a teaching tool (Chapman, 2018). Even if the officer is not in any serious trouble it can be used to better enhance their skills or verbal judo when in future situations. As much as scenarios and scripts can build officer capabilities, nothing beats actual scenarios. These scenarios can then open further into discussion in the classroom and develop ideas of the individuals watching developing both critiques and praises.      The future of body worn cameras in law enforcement is currently rocky. Between the current officer prejudice issues that have arose and the call to defund police departments making them try to figure out where to cut funding. Either way it goes the use of cameras, both in the car and on the officer can not only protect the officer, but provide an additional tool for leaders to use when communicating with and developing subordinates.
Peer 2:
It is standard practice in the United States for police officers to file a report after they kill someone in the line of duty. Sir Robert Peel’s principals still hold true to this day. Some law enforcement officials have proposed allowing officers to view body camera footage of such incidents before they file a report. Such recommendations are misguided and should be opposed. Some law enforcement officials argue that allowing officers to view the footage before making a statement ensures that the incident report is accurate.  It is said that allowing an officer to view body camera footage will more likely assist them in giving an accurate statement to investigators. When submitting a report on a deadly use-of-force incident it should depend in large part on what the officer involved believed at the time of the shooting. Officers can use deadly force if they have reasonable belief that they or others could be killed or seriously injured by a suspect. Allowing officers to view body camera footage before speaking to investigators gives them a chance to search for reasonable suspicion, meaning that the officer’s statements won’t be a true reflection of what the officer remembers. Law enforcement officials might be concerned about body camera footage being used as part of a “gotcha” strategy. Topeka (Kansas) Police Department, stated, “If you make a statement that you used force because you thought a suspect had a gun but the video later shows that it was actually a cell phone, it looks like you were lying. But if you truly thought he had a gun, you were not lying—you were just wrong.” Researchers stated that about 500 police departments (only 254 responded) concluded that while a majority of police executives did favor allowing officers to review body camera footage before making a statement, some “said that it is better for an officer’s statement to reflect what he or she perceived during the event, rather than what the camera footage revealed.”  Officer’s statements should state what they remember rather than what they think after viewing footage. Allowing officers to see footage before making statements is not only troubling because their accounts will cease to be accurate reflections of what they remember.The downside to holding officers accountable, is they have the control and or ability to turn their body cameras off and on. With this power, officers can choose when they start recording an encounter. The accountability comes when officers fail to use their body cameras as intended, and the consequences their superiors choose to enforce. Knowing that officers are held to a strict guideline, can more than often, assure that body cameras are used as intended; to gain evidence and support documentation. The camera may capture images, data, etc. that the officer did not because of stress, fear, physical defects, the brain’s capacity to process huge amounts of data under stress or pressure they may feel while engaged in a situation. The camera captures and records data that the officer may not have used or had available at the time of his or her decision making. A misuse of the body camera may be when an officer relies on the video to write a statement. An officer’s decision to use force is based on officer discretion. An appropriate use of the body camera footage would be to teach or coach and officer how to handle a situation that they may have previously allowed to get out of control. The video footage can offer officers a new perspective on how someone may have had during an altercation. This would allow officers to be properly trained on how to engage any hostile situation with the intent to diffuse versus to escalate. The opportunity to teach officers tact and de-escalation skills is endless with the endless hours of body camera footage that is taped. With the right policies in place body cameras have the potential to contribute to a much-needed increase in law enforcement accountability and transparency. Allowing police officers to view footage of incidents before they make statements will not increase transparency or accountability and will make many members of the public suspicious of police accounts of deadly use-of-force incidents.