Tyre Nichols video: The terror-spreading camera footage of the incident shouldn’t be publicized 

Courtesy of AP Images

Nichols’s family attorney Ben Crump (center) speaks during a news conference with Nichols’s father (second from the right) and mother (right) on Jan. 23. 

While numerous news reports and media feeds containing the eye-catching video tape of the Tyre Nichols incident — in which Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man, was pulled over by police officers and eventually beaten to death — went viral in early January, I was among those who purposefully avoided watching the horrific video. 

Despite the fact that a body camera can be helpful in providing evidence for the investigation of a crime, it was hard to believe such traumatic footage was so easily revealed to the public. 

The police department initially reported that Nichols attempted to run away as the officers approached, yet Nichols’s family refuted that claim — the family’s statement was later confirmed by the body camera footage. Nichols responded calmly, and only ran away when the police tried to ​​deploy a taser gun on him. More police appeared on tape as Nichols was captured, surrounded, kicked and beaten by the officers, according to ABC News. Nichols died several days after the tragic event. As of writing, five officers have been charged for his death, and no further information has been released since January. 

The necessity of camera footage was to improve officer safety, increase evidence quality, reduce civilian complaints and reduce agency liability. As noted by a 2018 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, about 80% of local police and sheriffs have used body-worn cameras. Keeping the footage private would’ve fulfilled this need of having the evidence recorded; sharing the footage with the public, however, went beyond this purpose and could have led to deterimental effects. 

According to Cleveland Clinic, watching true crime, or real-life violent scenes, can result in psychological effects such as increased fear, anxiety and wariness. The footage’s release can particularly cause psychological trauma or emotional distress for many who stumble upon the video.

Unfortunately, Nichols’s experience was not the first of its kind. There have been various similar incidents that have happened in the past, where released video footage came with little benefits.

The camera footage showing the fatal beating of George Floyd in May of 2020 was considered one of the most well-known and impactful incidents of all time. The video, which widely circulated online, not only caused significant emotional distress and trauma for his family and community, but also created an unfair, never-ending reminder to victims’ families of their pain and suffering.

The situation for Nichols was slightly different in that the family requested the footage be released to the public, wishing to alert the public and prevent history from repeating itself. However, in either case, regardless of whether the individual’s relatives have granted permission to publish the footage, doing so would leave permanent scars on people’s memories. They may be reminded of the crime every time the video footage is shown or discussed online through the mass media. 

“RowVaughn Wells (Nichols’s mother) was unable to get through viewing the first minute of the footage after hearing Nichols calling [her name] three times,” family attorney Ben Crump remarked. 

Information can spread rapidly and incite extreme reactions through online media. The internet’s accessibility makes it all the more important to carefully consider ramifications of publicizing sensitive, provocative content online. 

The ethical issue here is whether public officials should  protect the public from extremely violent and disturbing images. Sometimes seeing violence is the only way to understand it and bring about change; but at the same time, it could also provoke widespread fear and violence in the public. Surely the bystander video could make the difference between justice and injustice by preventing police officers involved from walking away unscathed. 

For me, reading about the news without having to experience the traumatic scenes makes the most sense. For others,  the camera footage is the right choice. In the digital age, each of us will have to decide how much violent imagery we can tolerate, even when the underlying issues are incredibly important.