Seems to me this goes both ways...or three ways. An LAC wearing a body cam of his own would be able to provide slow motion video to demonstrate that he was in fear of his life from a violent criminal. He would also be able to show that officers' conduct toward the LAC was deliberate and calculated.
The study shows that individuals viewing video at slow motion speed are several times more likely to import ill intent. Fair enough. Where is the study to show how much less likely someone sitting in a jury box, in a full court room, at noon day is to consider that an assailant actually posed a "reasonable man" threat to the cop's or LAC's life and limb than if they were alone on a dark sidewalk at 10:00 at night? IOW, does the slow motion speed actually create a bias toward seeing intent where there is none? Or does it simply help to overcome the bias that most decent folks have against believing that there are some human beings who can behave as viciously as a cop or LAC who shoots in self defense may have experienced?
To be clear, the study dealt with violent acts caught on video. It was assessing the extent to which a viewer would attribute deliberate forethought to the violent act. This bodes poorly for someone charged with injuring or killing another person when the violent act was caught on tape because intent is the key element in whether someone committed manslaughter vs whether he committed murder.
But, to a certain extent the bias exposed doesn't much matter in the cases of an LAC or cop shooting in claimed self defense.
If I'm shooting in self defense it is against the observable acts of the violent criminal. I don't much care about his intent. Whether he has carefully premeditated his violence, or is simply reacting from the passions of the moment don't matter to me much at all. I don't care whether he is dunk, or high, bipolar or otherwise mentally ill. I don't particularly care if he is entirely in his right mind and attacking me because of my race, my religion, my political bumper sticker, or because he thinks I cut him off at the last exit. I don't care if I'm a completely random target picked to complete some gang initiation. His motive just doesn't much matter to me.
These things may well factor into what strategy will most likely de-escalate. They may factor into whether displaying the gun is likely to be enough to cause him to turn tail and run. They may help in deciding whether attempting to flee is more dangerous than standing my ground.
But if my efforts to avoid, withdraw, and de-escalate fail, then in the moment I have to pull the trigger, I don't care about motive. I care about the threat to my life and limb: immediacy, ability, and intent to inflict harm. The reason behind the intent, is largely moot.
If my body camera captures the bad guy and if slow motion helps the jury see what they would otherwise miss, great.
If a security camera captures both of us, it will show the violence of the bad guy.
If a security camera videos just me, not only will it show absolute intent to use my gun if I use it (NDs are not a good self defense strategy), but I am now armed with additional data to counter any bias the video may create against me.
Remember, we have long had solid studies showing that eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable evidence available. Yet juries continue to give it tremendous weight.
Charles
