Revisiting the Michael Brown Incident: A Critical Analysis

On August 9th, 2014, 18 year old Michael Brown was shot by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, sparking protests, riots, and widespread debate on police use of force. Numerous questions arose as to whether Michael Brown was armed or unarmed, if he had his hands in the air or was attacking Officer Wilson, and whether Officer Wilson was justified in firing his weapon that resulted in the death of Michael Brown (Itkowitz). Twenty-two years have passed since the riots in Los Angeles after the officers involved in the beating of Rodney King were acquitted on charges of excessive force, and it left many to wonder, including myself, as to why this happened again. Why were there so many questions surrounding the incident and how this could

For space-saving purposes I will refer to this paper as the “Rialto Experiment.” The Rialto Experiment began on February 13th, 2012 and ran for a year. In this experiment Farrar wanted to find out if “rational beings, including police officers, [were] unlikely to embrace socially undesirable behavior when videotaped”(3). Almost a thousand shifts were randomly divided nearly equally into two treatment groups. Officers wearing cameras were the treatment group, and officers without cameras were the control group. Over 43,000 police-to-public contacts were documented over the span of one year during the experiment, and Farrar reported that the “findings suggest[ed] more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use of force compared to control conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens ' complaints in the twelve months prior to the experiment” (8). While his evidence strongly suggests that police cameras would greatly reduce the use of force and citizen complaints, even Farrar acquiesces that the Rialto Experiment did not collect any evidence from the citizens being recorded as to whether they modified their behavior after receiving the information that they were being videotaped. Several studies sourced by Farrar suggest that human beings positively modify their behavior when they are being observed (1-2). Farrar also notes that there may be “ethical considerations”(9) posed,

In his report, “Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, A Win for All,” Stanley dives into some of the ethical questions surrounding police cameras. He states that cameras can be a “win-win”(1) for both the citizens and law enforcement. It would protect the citizens from unnecessary use-of-force and police misconduct, while simultaneously protecting law enforcement from frivolous lawsuits, complaints, and provide law enforcement with concrete evidence to be used in criminal proceedings. The problem, however; is that if all officers are required to wear cameras, recordings could then be made of peoples homes where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Incidences that may be completely innocent in nature could also be recorded, and incidences of a delicate nature,such as domestic violence calls, would also be recorded. With regard to the Freedom of Information Act, some of these recordings may be released to the public. With that said, Jay Stanley and the ACLU feel that strict privacy guidelines need to be put in place to protect citizens from having recordings of a personal nature released to the public. I have had a few personal encounters with police officers in my area, including having an officer in my home. Deputy Lieutenant Tyler Souther from the Macon County Sheriff’s Department was visiting me and my husband on a