The Problem with Police-Recorded Video

Abstract

Judges and jurists frequently read police-recorded video as arhetorical. It is not. Footage recorded from the perspective of an officer favors police. Drawing on both Burke’s theory of identification and film studies, I consider how footage filmed from an officer’s perspective functions as a nonverbal constitutive rhetoric. In an analysis of Harris v. Scott (2007), I demonstrate how police-recorded video encourages viewers to dissolve the space between themselves and the police, inviting audiences to characterize both police and themselves as passive, impartial, and objective viewers of an recorded event. When successful as constitutive rhetoric, footage from police-recorded video makes jurors and judges more suspectable to arguments that characterize police as passive observers in an event.

Journal
Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Published
2023-08-08
DOI
10.1080/02773945.2022.2146168
Open Access
Closed

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (5)

  1. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
  2. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
  3. Rhetoric Review
  4. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
  5. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Also cites 49 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1080/10841806.2017.1381482
  2. 10.1177/1477370816643734
  3. 10.1057/9780230285804
  4. 10.36643/mjrl.24.1.do
  5. 10.21428/88de04a1.bc4fdeda
  6. 10.24908/ss.v13i3/4.5421
  7. 10.1525/9780520340664
  8. 10.1525/9780520341715
  9. 10.1057/s42738-021-00073-2
  10. 10.1080/00335638709383799
  11. 10.2307/1229039
  12. 10.1080/01463370209385643
  13. 10.1215/9780822381044-004
  14. 10.1080/10350330.2013.777593
  15. 10.1080/1041794X.2013.823456
  16. 10.3828/sfftv.2013.13
  17. 10.1007/978-1-137-00721-6
  18. 10.11126/stanford/9780804789110.001.0001
  19. 10.17742/IMAGE.p70s.9.1.6
  20. 10.1080/10417949709373044
  21. 10.1080/00335630.2019.1657237
  22. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.007
  23. 10.1037/law0000168
  24. 10.1002/bsl.2441
  25. 10.3758/BF03197032
  26. 10.1017/S0261143015000355
  27. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01879.x
  28. 10.1177/009365095022003002
  29. 10.1080/07491409.2016.1192077
  30. 10.1080/08838157309363698
  31. 10.1023/A:1020278620751
  32. 10.4135/9781452233444
  33. 10.1177/002224379202900406
  34. 10.1073/pnas.1805161115
  35. 10.1353/rap.2004.0013
  36. 10.1080/00335639509384117
  37. 10.1017/S1742058X18000292
  38. 10.2307/j.ctvgs08j3
  39. 10.1086/429599
  40. 10.1037/1076-898X.12.4.197
  41. 10.1080/09546553.2020.1835654
  42. 10.1353/aq.2014.0060
  43. 10.1093/mind/LXXVII.306.155
  44. 10.1080/00335639709384179
  45. 10.17953/aicr.25.4.m66w143xm1623704
  46. 10.1080/07491409.2005.10162482
  47. 10.1038/s41562-017-0227-x
  48. 10.5210/fm.v20i2.5380
  49. 10.1073/pnas.1814773116
CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network →