The Tribune

ANOTHER police-involved shooting has led to questions over a variety of issues – but most pointedly with regard to the use of body cameras.

In the latest case, a woman was injured in a police shooting – reportedly while she was breastfeeding a baby.

According to the police report of the incident, officers were executing a search warrant on a home on Sunday.

Police said that as officers entered the property, a pit bull reportedly attempted to attack them and was subsequently shot.

What raised some eyebrows is that the woman was said to be injured after a bullet ricocheted off the pit bull.

This was greeted with some incredulity – and no small amount of commentary online as people questioned how that could be so.

Even if that were the case, some said, why were police opening fire at a dog when a woman was nearby and was subsequently hit? Were the officers in fear for their lives from a dog?

A family member has since questioned the police version of events, saying that the first thing officers did was “stick their gun straight through the gate, shoot at the dog and then shoot at the girl”.

The woman who was hit is in critical condition in hospital.

The family member went on to say the police “shot first and asked questions later”.

That there are two sides to any story is nothing new – but this is exactly the kind of situation where recorded footage from body cameras would be able to remove doubt.

National Security Minister Wayne Munroe even said yesterday that “in light of some recent events” the government intends to buy 300 more body cameras.

All well and good – but where are the results from the cameras we currently possess?

Back in January, amid another debate over a police-involved shooting, there was a discussion about how footage from such cameras is handled.

Mr Munroe said at the time that footage would only be released in the case of a trial or an inquest.

At the time, we could not recall any occasion when body cam footage had been released since the cameras were introduced in August 2020. That has not changed since.

We have a different jurisdiction from in the United States, where we routinely see video footage from cameras – and from the start there was an indication that we would not see such footage being routinely released.

However, there even appears to be a lack of clarity over any such system for those affected to see such videos. In January last year, Mr Munroe talked of having seen video footage of a case where a marine was shot dead by police and that the footage was consistent with the accounts of officers. As we asked in this column, how does Mr Munroe get to be the one who pronounces on such matters?

Such footage can exonerate officers or it can show concerns are valid.

That this comes as another video circulates on social media, this time showing a fight with a police officer, is a reminder that there are many cameras out there already – sometimes not telling a whole story.

The video footage circulating shows a fight but not what caused it, or how the officer got into that situation. Full footage from a body camera can reveal how matters got to that stage – and who was in the right.

Sometimes when these videos circulate, we never hear any further answers. In January this year, for example, two police officers were seen body slamming a man to the ground and kicking him in the head.

An investigation was said to be being conducted by the Complaints and Corruption Branch of the Royal Bahamas Police Force – but no more has been heard.

What we want to ensure is that things are done the proper way. If officers are in the right, then footage can remove any doubts over their actions. If they are in the wrong, then it can be used to hold them to account.

That we have spent so much on body cameras and the public has in return seen so little does raise questions over their value – and who the cameras are there to protect.

When 300 more are being ordered and we have yet to see one video released does make one question how much protection such devices bring to the public.

The process by which such footage is handled and released needs to be made more transparent – so if people need to be held to account, the process for doing so is clear. That is the very least that those caught up in such incidents deserve.