Another story of body cameras and police officers.
Although this story is from Ohio, its relevance crosses state borders. There are several interesting points:
1) The officer showed amazing restraint and maturity in not using deadly force. Undoubtedly, the use of deadly would have been justified.
2) The incident was caught on a body camera. The suspect's actions, the officer's actions, and all of the audio was recorded. Fortunately, there does not appear to be any dispute as to the facts of the encounter or the arrest of the suspect. However, in many other encounters and arrests, there ARE factual disputes. It should be patently obvious that this body camera would forestall nearly ANY factual dispute about this encounter.
3) The last part of the story is mind-numbingly frustrating: "Kidder said a relative gave him the body camera following the deadly officer-involved shooting last year in Ferguson, Missouri."
Seriously? This young officer, barely one year on the job, was only wearing a body camera because his family purchased it for him!?!?
Kudos to the officer and his family for having the foresight to invest in technology that can save his career and his freedom. What a shame that this locality is using the "lacking funding" excuse for not protecting their officers AND their citizens with readily available technology.
In unrelated news, why does Virginia Beach Police Department not have body cameras yet?