Why is CCTV of crimes released to press?

[Sammysquiz]

The CCTV footage of the police officer Matt Ratana’s murder is widely available on media sites today. It looks to have been released to the media, rather than leaked somehow. But why is this done? Of course the jury need to see it, but what purpose does it serve to let the average Joe at home watch it?

I can sort of see the reasoning if say they show footage of someone speeding and knocking someone down as that might act as a deterrent to the viewer, but to see a police officer being shot?

Must be devastating for the family to already be going though so much pain, and then to have their loved one’s last moments splashed over the internet.

Just wondered if anyone knew why sometimes CCTV (and other legal evidence) is released, and sometimes not?

[purpleme12]

I don't get it either.
I think it's wrong that anyone and everyone can see it

[DojaPhat]

The world also got the gory frame by frame killing of George Floyd, at least with the police officer some care has been taken to blur parts of it to preserve not only his dignity but to provide some consideration for those watching.

[purpleme12]

Yes it's the dignity as well

[LAHallucinations]

I suppose it's just part of the open justice system we have in the UK - ensuring that court proceedings are carried out in an open, public and transparent manner. I'm listening to the Mail Online's Lucy Letby podcast and they talk about that topic a lot. Any one of us would have the right to go down to court and watch/listen to this evidence in person.

I think it's right that the public are shown selected and censored parts of the CCTV evidence (unlike in other countries we never actually see any graphic footage). Spoken evidence from court can be equally upsetting or disturbing, but we don't keep that hidden from the public.