TheNightKing
New member
Another incident of a cop being a coward.
State Trooper Kills Deaf Man Attempting To Communicate With Sign Language
HustleTree
New member
Man i sure do wish i could fuck up at work and get a paid vacation.
I'll have to see how this develops, because most of the news stories are leaving out the fact that he drove on for 7.5 miles from the exit where the cop tried to pull him over, to his home, and when the cops car arrived, it was smoking said one neighbor. Maybe smoking because of a random engine fuck up, or maybe because of something else. Not sure
So basically he went on a highway speed chase home, got into an altercation with the officers, and ended up dead for some reason. Hes been arrested for resisting arrest before. This isnt his first rodeo.
Hopefully they will be transparent about this soon. Its quite stupid that we have no federal mandate on retrieving police footage within a reasonable amount of time. 72 hours tops. Cities sit on police footage for years sometimes before lawyers can finally get it out to the public. SMDH
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article96565352.html
So basically he went on a highway speed chase home, got into an altercation with the officers, and ended up dead for some reason. Hes been arrested for resisting arrest before. This isnt his first rodeo.
Hopefully they will be transparent about this soon. Its quite stupid that we have no federal mandate on retrieving police footage within a reasonable amount of time. 72 hours tops. Cities sit on police footage for years sometimes before lawyers can finally get it out to the public. SMDH
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article96565352.html
semi-auto-mato
New member
Vellum;9285407 said:
it doesn't matter if this was his first rodeo. the fact that this was a high speed chase is very important though. first there should have been more cops there but none of them shot. second in situations like this the officers do a felony stop and not a traffic stop. the cop does not approach a car in a felony traffic stop. they get all people out of the car. I get he cant hear or speak so that wouldn't have stopped him from disobeying orders but the attempt is crucial. the state troopers have to explain their standard operating procedure for felony traffic stops and why it wasn't done. there was no reason for this dude to die.
as for the video evidence. PD's have people go over the footage and they only keep what they feel is admissible in court. this is a common practice because of limited storage. they will tell u that the footage has to be stored for years so they cant keep it all. they will say some parts of the encounter does not have any bearing on the case so they have to get rid of that stuff. in other words they keep what benefits them and get rid of what incriminates them. the whole body cam stuff is a sham but my company makes millions off it so I guess I cant really complain...smh
A Talented One
New member
The victim is white. Is the cop black? Can't find pictures.
semi-auto-mato;9285430 said:
1) Eh, it does matter if it isnt his first rodeo with resisting arrest, but its overshadowed by a 7 mile highway chase, so its kind of a moot point to us. If he was alive, in court it wouldnt help him that he has a resisting arrest prior.
They didnt need to get him out of the car. He got out of it himself apparently.
2) Ive never in my life heard of PD's getting to choose what footage to keep. Where is a source on that? You know how illegal, and or highly suspect that would be in a case. Where the cops go to court, say we destroyed officer 1,2, and 10s police footage of the homicide scene because we thought it was useless for court.
Any police cam footage destroyed in a case, im sure is reviewed by the D.A and other lawyers before its considered inadmissible, and or useless. That would be legal catastrophe across the country if cops were sitting around, eating donuts and deciding what footage for the D.A to take to court or not. Its easier to just not turn your body cam on to be honest.
Im not talking about storage. Im talking about police sitting on video for years because they have it, and dont want to release it because they dont have to. I can source plenty of stories of that happening, as it just happened a few days ago in L.A. Sat on footage of Richard Garcia kicking a young black man in the head way after he had already been tackled, detained, and had his arms behind his backs while laying on his stomach. This happened in 2014. The footage just came out after they copped a plea deal for the cop that got him no jail time.
There needs to be law across the board on how police footage is handled. Theyre clearly overpaying for storage, and then blaming a lack of funding for storing police cam footage.
semi-auto-mato
New member
Vellum;9285515 said:
@ the bolded I am your source. I am an IT manager at one of the top solution providers for the public safety sector. We sell and advise local, state, and federal departments on storage, body cams, dash cams, drones, and anything else security related. we have calls and meetings with these folks all the time. we go onsite all the time. Today alone I had a sheriff department ask me about a drone that can cover at least a 5 mile radius. They asked the cost of the drone and how much data storage they need. They want to know about both cloud and on prem. That is how all our conversations are starts.
if you have a small department of 20 officers recording 40 hours per week that's 800 hours of video that needs to be stored every week. that's over 40k hours per year. depending on different factors that department would need 1 tb of space per week to store all that footage. an approx guess not looking at any sheet here is that would be somewhere around 100k per year. next year they would need to add another 100k. so every year there cost would go up because they are storing shit that will never be used. that shit is too expensive for the little grant money they get.
police departments do not have to hire companies like Taser to keep track of who views the video. all they have to do is download the all video from the camera. the camera will then erase itself so it can record more tomorrow. the camera does not care if u download it to a external hard drive sitting on the captains desk. it just wants to make sure the video was downloaded in full. someone watches and deletes and then footage that is considered good for court is then stored.
it is more to it but if u want the full unedited footage u have to see the footage from that camera for the entire day. most of the footage is destroyed because out of an officers shift only 10 - 15 mins makes it to court. so they store that footage only because its cost effective.
look at the Sandra bland arrest video my dude. u tell me if that video was edited when the tow truck pulls up. doesn't it seem like something is missing? it is extremely hard to tell if the video is edited.
stringer bell
New member
But.. But.. There's a 'War on Cops'...
semi-auto-mato;9285730 said:
Okay you said all that, and none of that has to do with cops sitting down and choosing to erase footage they deem inadmissible, or irrelevant to an investigation. Nor addresses the legal repercussions of such.
Youre just talking data storage, and i literally just said "Im not talking about storage". We know hard drives get full, and things need to get deleted eventually. DUH!
So again, source on cops sitting down during something like a homicide case involving a citizen shooting by a cop, and deleting cam footage before the D.A or other lawyers get to see the footage first.
If it exist, and is an open, wide spread practice, i'll gladly add it to my knowledge banks. Conceding i was wrong. I couldnt imagine any PD openly just deleting what they feel before lawyers see it, and thats completely fine with the D.A, defense lawyers, ect..
Could you imagine 5 cops with footage of a recent homicide by an officer. They turn in their cams, and the police chief and a coworker just sit back, eat pizza, and delete what they feel is footage not worthy to keep before any lawyers have seen said footage. That would work against the police more than for them once it got to court, and people who dont want to commit purjury, start telling the jury what said officers did with some of the footage. Theyd be better off just throwing the cam in the trash and saying it got misplaced. lol
semi-auto-mato
New member
Smh...some folks will never believe.
STORAGE is the most important thing here because it dictates the actions of the police department concerning what they do with the evidence. if they had unlimited storage they could just download the video and leave it alone. they do not have the space so they have to have SOMEONE look at the footage and delete most of it. SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE I AM TELLING YOU THAT SOMEONE IN THE DEPARTMENT (OR CONTRACTED BY THE DEPARTMENT) DECIDES WHAT STAYS AND WHAT GOES.
LEGALLY there is no law that says they have to turn over complete cam footage. all the prosecutors have to do is turn over whatever evidence they are going to use in court to the defense. they cant just pop up with cam footage that have to let the defense view what they will show in court.
LEGALLY the court definition of authentic varies. this is because of STORAGE and the fact that police departments have to have many people touch these videos. authentic to the court is proof that it is the involved officer, the victim, the date and the time. authentic does not require that if the cam records an hour worth of stuff the pd has to present an hour. it is also extremely hard to tell if a video is tampered with especially when its done by a professional.
here is an excerpt for the Washington post
In Albuquerque, a city with a long history of police brutality and corruption, police officer Jeremy Dear was fired in December 2014 after repeated incidents in which he failed to activate his body camera just before using force, including just before shooting and killing a teenaged girl. Dear also has a history of allegations of excessive force. Even after Dear was explicitly told to record all of his interactions with citizens, he sent an email asking to use his camera in “offline” mode, which would have allowed him to delete videos before they were uploaded to a cloud server. Last November, the city’s Personnel Board voted 3-2 to reinstate Dear on the police force.
In San Diego, police officials have said they (and only they) will determine which videos are released to the public and when, a policy that does little to increase transparency and public trust. A Washington Post investigation last fall found similar problems across the country. Cops accused of misconduct or excessive force were given access to footage of controversial incidents, but that footage was rarely made public.
In a hearing before a committee of the state legislature late last year, law enforcement leaders in Tennessee raised another potential barrier to the widespread use of body cameras: the cost of complying with open records requests. They raised the possibility of activist or watchdog groups requesting huge caches of video that they claimed would require weeks of labor to fulfill.
They do not keep all footage and they go over everything. there are no legal ramifications. they can do whatever they want with that footage and nothing will happen to them. STOP ASKING FOR THE FOOTAGE.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-police-body-cameras/?utm_term=.d3058296bb0f
STORAGE is the most important thing here because it dictates the actions of the police department concerning what they do with the evidence. if they had unlimited storage they could just download the video and leave it alone. they do not have the space so they have to have SOMEONE look at the footage and delete most of it. SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE I AM TELLING YOU THAT SOMEONE IN THE DEPARTMENT (OR CONTRACTED BY THE DEPARTMENT) DECIDES WHAT STAYS AND WHAT GOES.
LEGALLY there is no law that says they have to turn over complete cam footage. all the prosecutors have to do is turn over whatever evidence they are going to use in court to the defense. they cant just pop up with cam footage that have to let the defense view what they will show in court.
LEGALLY the court definition of authentic varies. this is because of STORAGE and the fact that police departments have to have many people touch these videos. authentic to the court is proof that it is the involved officer, the victim, the date and the time. authentic does not require that if the cam records an hour worth of stuff the pd has to present an hour. it is also extremely hard to tell if a video is tampered with especially when its done by a professional.
here is an excerpt for the Washington post
In Albuquerque, a city with a long history of police brutality and corruption, police officer Jeremy Dear was fired in December 2014 after repeated incidents in which he failed to activate his body camera just before using force, including just before shooting and killing a teenaged girl. Dear also has a history of allegations of excessive force. Even after Dear was explicitly told to record all of his interactions with citizens, he sent an email asking to use his camera in “offline” mode, which would have allowed him to delete videos before they were uploaded to a cloud server. Last November, the city’s Personnel Board voted 3-2 to reinstate Dear on the police force.
In San Diego, police officials have said they (and only they) will determine which videos are released to the public and when, a policy that does little to increase transparency and public trust. A Washington Post investigation last fall found similar problems across the country. Cops accused of misconduct or excessive force were given access to footage of controversial incidents, but that footage was rarely made public.
In a hearing before a committee of the state legislature late last year, law enforcement leaders in Tennessee raised another potential barrier to the widespread use of body cameras: the cost of complying with open records requests. They raised the possibility of activist or watchdog groups requesting huge caches of video that they claimed would require weeks of labor to fulfill.
They do not keep all footage and they go over everything. there are no legal ramifications. they can do whatever they want with that footage and nothing will happen to them. STOP ASKING FOR THE FOOTAGE.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-police-body-cameras/?utm_term=.d3058296bb0f
semi-auto-mato
New member
this is from the ACLU and their suggestion of a uniformed body cam policy
•The police department (including internal investigations and supervisors) and third parties should also be able to flag an incident if they have some basis to believe police misconduct has occurred or have reasonable suspicion that the video contains evidence of a crime. We do not want the police or gadflies to be able to routinely flag all recordings in order to circumvent the retention limit.
•If any useful evidence is obtained during an authorized use of a recording (see below), the recording would then be retained in the same manner as any other evidence gathered during an investigation.
They know that the cams are viewed internally and by third parties. they know stuff is destroyed. notice the term useful evidence.
https://www.aclu.org/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all
•The police department (including internal investigations and supervisors) and third parties should also be able to flag an incident if they have some basis to believe police misconduct has occurred or have reasonable suspicion that the video contains evidence of a crime. We do not want the police or gadflies to be able to routinely flag all recordings in order to circumvent the retention limit.
•If any useful evidence is obtained during an authorized use of a recording (see below), the recording would then be retained in the same manner as any other evidence gathered during an investigation.
They know that the cams are viewed internally and by third parties. they know stuff is destroyed. notice the term useful evidence.
https://www.aclu.org/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all
@semi-auto-mato
I see what youre saying. Most of that ive even typed myself before, but that still doesnt address the statement you made earlier that started off this back and forth.
You said "in other words they keep what benefits them and get rid of what incriminates them".
I just question the idea that this is policy or normal at least lately. That cops are straight up tampering with evidence every single chance they get, cause why not, we can do wtf we want. I wasnt debating that things get deleted to save space, or that hours of footage isnt edited when needed for court. Although plenty of court cases and juries have had to sit through hours of footage before im sure. Usually not relevant for a cop shooting im sure. Since the before middle and after is usually no more than 20 minutes max. Not enough, but plenty of cops have taken L's from tampering with evidence, so its definitely not as easy as they think once smart lawyers start questioning things.
In a plain example of whats going through my head. If you have an incident where two officers shot and killed a suspect who was unarmed, and there were 3 other cops present. After getting indicted and standing in front of a jury, if the defense ask the prosecution why they for instance only have cam footage from one officer, who conveniently doesnt have a good angle of the shooting, but the other 4 officers who testified their cams were on and working dont have any footage of the event, there is gonna be problems. Defense can rip on this mystery lost footage, and sway the jury.
But anyways, this is all hypothetical, and we agree on 9 out of 10 things when it comes to cams anyways, so its all good.
I also disagree that we should stop asking for footage. Asking for footage is whats been airing this shit out the last 5 years or so. Sometimes in favor of the officers too. Also citizens recording a lot of this shit too. We cant be discouraged by corruption, or insane policies that keep footage from us without hounding them. We need to press them harder until we can get better policies that protect citizens from a possible sociopath, thug, with a badge.
Its a new day. Time to keep the pressure on. Transparency is good for everyone, and protects everyone. If they dont like it, then that means that theyre likely guilty of something. So then we press harder.
I see what youre saying. Most of that ive even typed myself before, but that still doesnt address the statement you made earlier that started off this back and forth.
You said "in other words they keep what benefits them and get rid of what incriminates them".
I just question the idea that this is policy or normal at least lately. That cops are straight up tampering with evidence every single chance they get, cause why not, we can do wtf we want. I wasnt debating that things get deleted to save space, or that hours of footage isnt edited when needed for court. Although plenty of court cases and juries have had to sit through hours of footage before im sure. Usually not relevant for a cop shooting im sure. Since the before middle and after is usually no more than 20 minutes max. Not enough, but plenty of cops have taken L's from tampering with evidence, so its definitely not as easy as they think once smart lawyers start questioning things.
In a plain example of whats going through my head. If you have an incident where two officers shot and killed a suspect who was unarmed, and there were 3 other cops present. After getting indicted and standing in front of a jury, if the defense ask the prosecution why they for instance only have cam footage from one officer, who conveniently doesnt have a good angle of the shooting, but the other 4 officers who testified their cams were on and working dont have any footage of the event, there is gonna be problems. Defense can rip on this mystery lost footage, and sway the jury.
But anyways, this is all hypothetical, and we agree on 9 out of 10 things when it comes to cams anyways, so its all good.
I also disagree that we should stop asking for footage. Asking for footage is whats been airing this shit out the last 5 years or so. Sometimes in favor of the officers too. Also citizens recording a lot of this shit too. We cant be discouraged by corruption, or insane policies that keep footage from us without hounding them. We need to press them harder until we can get better policies that protect citizens from a possible sociopath, thug, with a badge.
Its a new day. Time to keep the pressure on. Transparency is good for everyone, and protects everyone. If they dont like it, then that means that theyre likely guilty of something. So then we press harder.
semi-auto-mato
New member
Citizen footage is the best footage. I gave you a link from the ACLU about their suggestions of how body cam footage should be handled so that it can be considered credible. In theory it is the best evidence but that's if it went from cam to evidence. The ACLU clearly talks about the normal procedure of people linked to the pd viewing and deleting stuff.
U can have all 4 cams entered into evidence. All 4 cams can be altered to show the same POV from different angles. The officer in new Mexico was reinstated even though it is known he tampered with the video footage.
Prosecutors do not get the evidence first. Investigators get it first and when they are done they present it to prosecutor. I wish the police departments worked the way u suggested it works but unfortunately it does not.
Unless it's a situation like Cincinnati where that shit was just downright disgusting and undeniable they will always limit what we see. Trust they already altered Phil Castile video and will only release it cuz diamond streamed the aftermath. Paul o Neal shit was straight deleted. I guarantee that just like korryn Gaines helmet cam video.
U see in Cali one of the pd's said they and only they will control what is released and there is no law or code that says that they can't. It is all about integrity.
U can have all 4 cams entered into evidence. All 4 cams can be altered to show the same POV from different angles. The officer in new Mexico was reinstated even though it is known he tampered with the video footage.
Prosecutors do not get the evidence first. Investigators get it first and when they are done they present it to prosecutor. I wish the police departments worked the way u suggested it works but unfortunately it does not.
Unless it's a situation like Cincinnati where that shit was just downright disgusting and undeniable they will always limit what we see. Trust they already altered Phil Castile video and will only release it cuz diamond streamed the aftermath. Paul o Neal shit was straight deleted. I guarantee that just like korryn Gaines helmet cam video.
U see in Cali one of the pd's said they and only they will control what is released and there is no law or code that says that they can't. It is all about integrity.
The Lonious Monk
New member
This shit is ridiculous. Anybody know when the All Lives Matter or White Lives Matter protests are going to be? I think I'll go.
