Other video may offer clear visual signals but be opaque about the narrative and motives of people represented. This is true of most such video posted, for example, a very recent clip posted on the front page of Huffington Post for May 13, 2009 [Huffington] .
nbc chicago on huffington post”: http://www.nbcchicago.com/video.
The video clip is shot from above and so steady that it must have been made with professional equipment; the logo tells us that it is material copyrighted by NBCLA. The clip is now hosted on a news website (NBC) in Chicago but the episode depicted unfolds in El Monte, California. We see the end of a not very fast car chase brought to a conclusion by police cars surrounding a vehicle by the side of a boulevard. The driver jumps out and takes off, the overhead camera following him as he runs across a parking lot, between houses, and is eventually trapped in a fenced backyard. He sees that he is cornered and so lies face down spread-eagled on the grass before any police arrive near him. The video then shows an officer arriving with a drawn gun who kicks the young man in the head. Another officer arrives, also with gun drawn, knees the young man in the back, and both officers keep him down using only one hand each as their guns are still drawn. The tape shows us the same kick to the head three times, twice zoomed in. The young man appears to be white; so do the officers. The young man, unarmed, appears to be slender and constituting no physical threat compared to the bulked up police officers. The clip ends with more officers at the scene with the young man and his two subduers still in a pile. We know nothing of the events that provoked the chase. We do not know whether the police had any reason to suspect that the young man was armed and dangerous. We are treated to a close up view of the kick to the head. That piece of editing must have been done in the camera. Why? Was the NBC News just gratifying their audience or are they attempting to editorialize about police practices? Were they following because they picked up a police radio call or were they just trolling in the neighborhood?
So, far from giving us direct access to reality, if we pay close attention to what is recorded, we may find instead an abyss of questions – who, what, when, what happened before and what does any of it mean? This will not be like Rashomon [Kurosawa], produced cinemagraphic material from multiple viewpoints ready to be assembled by viewers; it will be more like putting together part of an ancient pot from a few shards and guessing at the rest.
Further, we should know, but do not, much more about the effect of the source on the credibility of the video document. Does video material from dashboard surveillance cameras have a special credibility because of its source within police practice and not just from its seemingly detached “eye”? Does video that is generated in this way, even if it records bad behavior on the part of the officers, more often than not exonerate officers who should be reprimanded because of the source? See for example the video from Buckley v. Haddock, the first case to cite the Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. Harris. The Buckley police dashcam tape records the use of the Taser by an officer [Buckley police]. The Buckley tape produced no revulsion in the finders of fact – Haddock was given qualified immunity. But I, watching this video on the Web, cannot but feel surprise that the officer thought he needed to tase a handcuffed man who was merely weeping. What are the effects on judgment if members of the public post the same police video on YouTube or other similar venues? We simply do not have empirical studies on these and related topics.