When the Columbus Police Department released video on Tuesday from the body cameras worn by the three CPD officers who were involved in the Oct. 16 shooting death of Ricky Ball, the most relevant video — that taken immediately after the shooting was not included.
While none of the officers activated their body cameras when the fateful stop was made on that Friday night, one officer did turn on his camera about 30 seconds after the shots that claimed Ball’s life were fired. That video is now part of the continuing investigation by Mississippi Bureau of Investigations and was not part of the roughly two hours worth of video released Tuesday.
Instead, those who followed the link to the video from the CPD’s Twitter and Facebook pages saw the previous interactions between two of the officers — Canyon Boykin and Max Branch — and the citizens who were stopped earlier in the day of the shooting. There were 13 interactions altogether. The third officer, Yolanda Young, apparently did not turn on her body camera at any point on the day of Ball’s shooting.
All were routine stops and no serious breaches of police policy were revealed, according to the CPD.
Some might question the value of releasing these videos. Some might question the CPD’s motives.
But after viewing the video and hearing interim chief Fred Shelton explain the purpose of releasing the videos, we are satisfied that there is some value in making the information available to the public and that the CPD’s motives should not be considered entirely self-serving.
Our first look at the video produced by body cameras reveals that the quality of the video and audio are quite good. You can both see what the officer is seeing and hear the exchanges between the officer and the subjects they are questioning. As such, the value of the information taken from body camera should be considered reliable, something that should help establish a clear narrative of what transpires in these interactions. That’s important for both the officer and the citizen because the video eliminates much of the “he said/she said” nature that often clouds these incidents. The video should not be viewed as entirely comprehensive; it provides a look and listen only from the officer’s perspective and cannot capture things that might be happening outside the scope of the body camera. Even so, there is no questioning that the body camera information is helpful.
As for the CPD’s motives, it does show the department is serious about sharing information with the public. Shelton said he favored releasing future videos of stops that might be controversial — naturally, after investigations of those incidents have been completed. Shelton also said the videos could be used to help train officers, expose flaws and explore ways in which officers can be more effective in their work.
The release of these videos shows a continuing commitment to making sure the body cameras are used to further the interests of public safety. Last week, the city council approved tougher measures to make sure officers and their supervisors are held accountable for following body camera policy.
So, while Tuesday’s videos did not reveal — quite literally — the “smoking gun,” we feel releasing the information was a step forward.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 37 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.