The editorial of Dec. 10 regarding the good and bad of police body cameras left me frustrated. The author lists a few of the benefits of police body cameras: they can provide valuable evidence and can be helpful in clarifying what actually happened in disputed interactions between police officers and members of the public and, because people’s behavior tends to improve when they are being recorded, it may help moderate everyone’s behavior in encounters between officers and other citizens.

I would add a few items to the “good” category. Knowing that the facts of an encounter with a police officer are documented in video and audio, people who would otherwise file false complaints would be far less likely to do so. In situations in which both the officer and the person they interact with genuinely believe they are telling the truth, the body camera footage would be able to clarify what actually happened.

Eyewitness accounts of any stressful event have been proven to be unreliable or to provide an incomplete picture of what actually happened. The incident in Bend on Oct. 8 of this year, when several police officers subdued an individual in Drake Park, is a great example of a situation in which body cameras would have clarified what actually happened. Bystanders spoke of being concerned with the behavior of police officers, but of being unable to see what was happening. Had body cameras been in use at the time, footage would exist from the perspective of multiple officers, detailing in video and audio what happened from the beginning of the incident all the way to its conclusion. Instead of lingering concerns, people would have facts.

Most importantly, as body camera usage and the footage associated with it becomes common nationwide, it will hugely improve the public’s understanding of the operation of this fundamentally important aspect of civil society. People will be able to see for themselves not only improper or questionable behavior by officers, they will also be able to see the many physically dangerous and psychologically demanding encounters officers deal with on a regular basis. It is, without any doubt, a win-win for our society.

According to the editorial, the “bad” of the cameras falls into two categories — cost and improper or inconsistent camera use. The cost is real, but technology and data storage is getting cheaper almost by the day. Federal funds may be available to help offset the expense of equipping and training our officers. Additional manpower costs that the editorial speculates may occur could well be offset by the (also speculative) reduction in time spent on frivolous complaints against officers. Proper camera usage by officers can be resolved by training and the improvement of camera technology. For example, in the near future, an officer’s body camera that mistakenly wasn’t activated may well be able to begin recording automatically when it detects raised voices or abrupt loud noises.

The introduction of body cameras to the Bend police force is not indicative of a lack of trust in our officers. It is a way to help the police and the legal system operate more effectively, with greater transparency, and it is a fantastic way for the public to see, from the officer’s perspective, the wide range of demanding situations that police officers encounter and the spectrum of ways in which officers are trained to handle those situations. The good greatly outweighs the bad when it comes to body cameras for officers. The Bulletin (and the rest of us) should support Chief Jim Porter in the acquisition of body cameras for his officers.

— Charles Thiel lives in Bend.