By Malcolm Strachan

ANOTHER fatal shooting by police officers took place in the US over the weekend, and amid all the outrage, one thing is certain: without the video footage captured by phones, the story as we understand it might be very different.

That’s an important lesson here in The Bahamas too, where there have been frequent cases where officers have demanded that citizens stop recording with their phones, and have sometimes even seized the phone from an individual.

Let’s take a brief look at two recent fatal shootings in Minnesota. In both cases, video footage has been shared widely and analysed closely by news organisations.

The first case was the shooting of Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent as she drove away from officers on January 7. She was shot three times by an officer who initially positioned himself in front of her vehicle. She was not armed, but her attempt to drive away was characterised by US President Donald Trump and others as having “run over” the agent and that the shooting was “self defence.” Vice president JD Vance called the incident “classic terrorism” and the Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, called it “an act of domestic terrorism.” As videos emerged, it looked very different from those claims. Perhaps more to the point, those claims came very quickly rather than allowing time for a proper investigation.

Over the weekend, a second fatal shooting took place, of 37-year-old Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse who worked at a Veterans Affairs facility, who was out on the streets recording officers. Pretti was armed, he had a gun in his waistband, though he had a licence and it’s legal to carry a weapon in some states in the US. I may not think that’s wise, but that’s the law over there.

Again, Noem has been quick to describe what happened, which does not stack up with the video footage that emerged after the event.

She said Pretti had been “brandishing” a gun as he approached federal agents and that he “approached US border patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun”.

Greg Bovino, a senior border patrol commander, also said that Pretti “violently resisted” and that he “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement”.

The videos are very different. He does not have a gun in his hand when approached by officers, but a phone. He is seen to be helping two women who were being pushed by officers, then there is a pile-on and then the shooting happens.

There are many aspects of these shootings that are disturbing, but each shows the importance of having recordings to be able to compare against the official statements.

On many occasions in The Bahamas, there have been incidents where it has been reported that officers have demanded that people stop recording with their phones.

In April last year, one specific case saw a video circulate on social media where four uniformed officers entered a yard, and one officer approached the man filming and said: “I letting you know right now don’t record me without my consent.” He seized the device – even though the man was in his own yard. The man could be heard saying “give me my phone”.

It was later announced by Deputy Commissioner Kirkwood Andrews that no disciplinary action would be taken against the officer, while National Security Minister Wayne Munroe said there is “nothing fundamentally wrong” with recording police officers as long as footage is not used to alert others to officers’ presence.

Not only is it not fundamentally wrong, it is not wrong in the slightest to record officers, and the incidents in the US demonstrate exactly why it’s important.

In the aftermath of two contentious shootings, where claims are being made that do not match up to the evidence on video, the recordings let us see with our own eyes what took place.

If that’s something that involves wrongdoing by officers, we can see it. If it is something that vindicates officers, we can see it.

Beyond that, though, there’s nothing in the law to prevent you from photographing or filming law enforcement in the execution of their duties – whether that is police, immigration or defence force officers. Anything that’s in plain view in a public space can be recorded. (Note that “public space” element. You might be on land that belongs to someone else and they might object, for example. But if you’re in public? Nothing at all to stop you, no matter what an officer might say.

Sometimes officers have told people to delete their recordings. They can’t do that. They have no power to do that.

And this is nothing new. Back in 2021, Supt Marlon Fulford spoke on the police force’s own show, Cop Talk, to tell people that officers did not have the right to take away anyone’s cell phone. He added “if you are professional in your dealings, you do not have to worry about what is recorded” and “by all means, allow them to record.” He said there had been cases of phones being taken away and members of the public being assaulted as officers had been trying to take the phones away.

Back before he became commissioner, then Deputy Commissioner Clayton Fernander said the same thing. “If someone is recording you, why are you afraid of that, because you are doing your job? Just stand and show that level of respect to members of the public.”

That doesn’t mean you have the right to interfere with an officer in their duties. But if you are simply standing there and recording, you are not interfering.

We have seen cases in recent times where recordings have led to further investigations – whether it was the woman in a police station being denied access to a bathroom, recorded by an officer, or the cases where officers were allegedly caught soliciting bribes from a tourist or a migrant. Those cases may well have gone nowhere without the evidence to back them up.

The cases in the US also demonstrate the other reason why the right to make recordings is so important, even under the best governments. Governments change, and no matter how good we might think a current commissioner might be, or a current minister of national security, having the right protects you against those who might tell you one thing while a recording shows another.

What happens then in the cases where there is no video evidence to contradict such claims?

The ability to photograph or record officers in their interactions with the public is nothing new. It has been a recurring part of life that every now and then there are incidents when officers are caught telling people to stop recording and hand over phones. Each time it’s wrong. The incidents in the US show why preserving such recordings – and the ability to do so on each new occasion – is important.

Two different jurisdictions, but the principle is the same: if something is happening in public, there is no reason why you can’t record it.

If you ever hear an officer say otherwise, just remember that their bosses disagree.