The Globe and Mail's Rod Mickleburgh examines whether the video of the tragic death of Robert Dziekanski at the hands of Taser-wielding RCMP officers tells the whole story.
In a CBC radio interview yesterday, Mr. Pritchard confessed he had two completely different reactions to what happened. On video, much of the episode seems to unfold in an eerie calm. Yet, at the time, as an eyewitness, Mr. Pritchard felt the situation was anything but serene.
"In fact, the original interviews and my statements were the complete opposite," he recounted. "Our opinions of him [Mr. Dziekanski] were: Here's a man, he's distraught, he's throwing things and he's yelling in a foreign language.
"Believe me, I was 100 per cent on the police side up to this point. As far as I was concerned, the cops came in and they did their job. ... I remember the cops running in there, and I thought there was this aggressive behaviour."
Then, reminiscent of the coach who doesn't want to comment on the game until he's seen the film, Mr. Pritchard saw what his video camera had recorded. It totally changed his view.
"Not until I got the footage back and I took some time to go through it again [did I realize that the atmosphere] was so calm. Bone-chilling calm. ... I can see it live in front of me. There was no need to use the taser. They had time. ... It was a complete misuse of the taser. It didn't need to be done."
Does what he feels now override what Mr. Pritchard experienced while the incident was taking place, before he took a look at the now-famous video? Do videos trump eyewitness accounts? What is one to believe?
Despite their clarity, videos do not record tension, emotions or accumulated anxiety. Nor do they provide context or background.
That is exactly what the RCMP will be focusing on as they try to justify to millions of appalled viewers why four of their officers decided in a matter of seconds that the only way to corral Mr. Dziekanski was to taser him, pin him roughly to the ground, and taser him again.
The Mounties have already downgraded the video from "evidence vital to the investigation" - their description when they initially refused Mr. Pritchard's demand to return it - to "only one piece of evidence," now that the footage is in the public domain.
I wonder if the RCMP are looking back at the Rodney King case for inspiration. King was a black resident of Los Angeles. Police had been pursuing him on March 3, 1991 on suspicion of drunk driving. The chase hit speeds in excess of 180 kilometres per hour. When they arrested him, someone with a video camera captured footage of the police whaling on King with their batons.
Four officers were charged. They were all acquitted, leading to the Los Angeles race riots of 1992 mere hours after the verdict came down.
The prosecution obviously saw the video as important, but the defence also played the video over and over and over again, until it lost its power to shock the jury. The jury heard about King's behaviour before the video kicked in, how he refused to obey police instructions and how he rose to his feet after police had tasered him twice.
The cops argued they thought they were dealing with a buff ex-con who was "dusted" -- meaning high on the drug PCP, which can give a person superhuman strength.
The video reportedly didn't start until after King had lunged at one officer.
At the trial held in very caucasian, conservative Orange County, the jury was seen as very pro-police, wrote Doug Linder in an article for the "famous trials project" of the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law school, where he is a professor:
The media underappreciated the importance of the composition of the jury. Perhaps placing too much confidence in the ability of the videotape to secure a conviction, the media failed to adequately prepare the public for the verdict that would come weeks later.
Linder's article seems to be in line with my admittedly now-vague recollections of the King trial. It's worth noting that two of the four officers were later found guilty on charges of violating King's civil rights.
All I'm saying is that when confronted with shocking images of any type, I would caution that it's still just part of the picture, not the whole story.
The news media still has some journalism to do in these cases, even when such sensational footage falls in its lap.