Cameras

Police departments around the Bay Area and the country are equipping officers with wearable cameras in an effort to capture video evidence that could head off the kind of dispute that exploded after an officer killed an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo. Use of the cameras is now expected to swell, with Ferguson among the cities planning to buy them as part of a profound shift in law enforcement that comes two decades after the mass emergence of videos of violent police encounters. But while police leaders and critics are in rare agreement over the cameras - the watchdogs see accountability, the police see a way to protect officers from unfounded accusations - the technology's spread is raising questions. In some cases, including a friendly-fire shooting that left a BART sergeant dead in January, officers failed to turn on cameras at crucial moments. Attorneys for people shot by police have had to sue to see footage. And it remains a point of debate whether an officer who shoots someone should be able to review the video before making an official statement. Moreover, videos of police shootings do not necessarily calm debate over whether they are justified. Police in St. Louis released a cell phone video this week of two officers killing a suspect who advanced with a knife, an effort to show the shooting was warranted in the wake of the controversial killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown in nearby Ferguson, which was not video-recorded.