It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

St. Louis officer turns off dash cam to beat suspect, while other officers stand by and assist

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   


Dash cam shows contested arrest, until officer turns it off





As video cameras begin to sweep post-Ferguson policing — and policymakers grapple with whether to bar the public from watching the images — one such recording sits at the heart of a new lawsuit.

It shows St. Louis police making an arrest that would later be called abusive, and catches an apparently surprised officer yelling, in part, “Everybody hold up. We’re red right now!” before she abruptly shuts off the camera.

Joel Schwartz and Bevis Schock, lawyers who filed suit Jan. 22 on behalf of Cortez Bufford, said “red” is cop slang for a running camera. What is seen before the video stops, they claim, supports their accusations in St. Louis Circuit Court that police lacked probable cause and applied excessive force.

The video, which St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay’s office had asked a private lawyer to delay releasing last summer, shows city officers pull Bufford from a car, kick him repeatedly and shock him with a Taser. It played a role in the dropping of charges against Bufford.

But a lawyer for the St. Louis Police Officers’ Association insists that the video really reflects a proper escalation of force applied against a resisting suspect who was lucky he didn’t get shot when he reached for a gun.

Police Chief Sam Dotson declined to comment on the specifics of the case.

Police department “special orders” regarding dashboard cameras say that “traffic and any type of investigative stops” and “vehicle pursuits,” among other things must be “recorded in their entirety.” The camera should be stopped “once the assignment or the reason for the initiation of recording is completed.”

The department has a small number of dashboard cameras and no body cameras.

A police spokeswoman told Fox 2 that the officer who turned off the Bufford case camera “has been recommended” for discipline, but is appealing. A lawyer for Swinton declined to comment.


Apparently the cops say he made an illegal U-turn, his lawyer says it was legal and therefore no reason to pull him over. Someone called 911 with a report of shots fired, cops say they had reasonable suspicion it was him, based on the illegal U-turn. They found pot in the car, and two bullets in a passenger's pocket. The driver refused to exit the vehicle, so they yanked him out, the leg sweeped him and he reached for a gun in his pocket, (cops version), they began the beat down, another cop turned off the cameras, beat down got worse, they turned the cameras back on two minutes later. Something they're not supposed to be doing obviously. I get it, the kid is not a straight A prep school student, but let's face it, if they can do it to him, they can do this to just about anybody. They need to make these camera on/off switches inaccessible to the police. Maybe make it so that only the Commissioner, Grand Jury, or the Prosecutor only has the power to turn them on or off. We obviously cannot trust the police to police themselves. I think this case proves that.




posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Big brother needs live feeds.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   
This is one reason I have doubts about body cams. There's nothing to stop them from shutting it off and doing something dirty.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   
But if shots were fired, wouldn't they be empty shells and not bullets?


originally posted by: Skid Mark
This is one reason I have doubts about body cams. There's nothing to stop them from shutting it off and doing something dirty.


Truthfully, anytime a body or dash cam is turned off it should result in an immediate suspension w/out pay regardless of what happened afterwards; but that's a pipedream.
edit on 2/17/2015 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
Big brother needs live feeds.


when you do that though, it just makes Big Brother, bigger. everyone can access all footage in real time, the 4th amendment gets crumpled just a little more and privacy issues are completely ignored if police on patrol are catching everything on body and dash cams while live streaming it. I'm all for them having the body cameras and think there should be no option to shut off or disable them for the officers whether theyre actively working or on break. They're on the public payroll, working for us so they shouldn't be extended privacy protections while on the job IMO. What I could get behind though is a civilian task force monitoring the police in real time and in addition to the body cams, there a taser attached somewhere too so that when the civilian task force sees them violating the letter of the law in real time, they have the authority to zap them and put them out for a minute. Just a little time out for the cops, that's all!



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   

But a lawyer for the St. Louis Police Officers’ Association insists that the video really reflects a proper escalation of force applied against a resisting suspect who was lucky he didn’t get shot when he reached for a gun.


Fortunately the escalation could go on hold while the camera was shutdown.

And people thought those Road Runner cartoons where the anvil stops in mid air for a short time were made up.

"We could shoot you but this time you are only getting a beating. It's your lucky day".
edit on 2/17/2015 by roadgravel because: typo



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I'd assume bodycams can be turned off if the officer is going to the bathroom, or having a private conversation on the phone, or in a variety of other situations. This surely is not one of them, and I'd think some type of punishment is in order (which will probably end up to be a paid vacation to the south of France or something equally horrendous)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Anyafaj

I've said before that the cameras are nothing but an expensive distraction, a placating nonsense that they hoped would shut the plebs up so they could get back to beating people without the spotlight on them.

Things need to change, and it goes far beyond just having cameras.

1. Proper screening of applicants, weeding out the deranged, psychotic, bullying a**holes with daddy issues.
2. Removal of all military grade weaponry from Police departments.
3. Cameras that cannot be turned off, assigned to each officer. If it's off or damaged they do no leave the station.
4. Deliberate tampering of cameras is grounds for immediate dismissal.
5. A public body to investigate all cases brought against the police.
6. Use of force made the LAST RESORT in all cases, no excuses.
7. No more indictment processes, if someone was beaten or killed by a police officer and there is ANYTHING to suggest their statement is not 100% accurate or ANYTHING to suggest it was not handled to meet basic standards it goes to trial.

The problem with policing across the US is that you've developed a culture where it's acceptable for police to believe they are "enforcers" and not "serving". The mentality seems to be that a cop can tell you to do anything, and if you dare to even argue they have permission to beat you into submission.

The public seems to accept this, as if it's normal. Even on ATS you see members who support the police and say that arguing with a cop means being beaten is justified. This is not in any way proper or decent Policing, this is a thug mentality where a corrupt group of violent men and women in uniform is running towns and cities with almost no accountability and able to use extreme force as and when they like.

This is the kind of "policing" you get in third world countries. It's not there supporting and serving the community, it's there enforcing a demand that you bow down to their personal authority.

South Park got it absolutely spot on with Cartman - "you will respect my authoritah!"

As I said, you need to do a lot more than just make a token suggestion of wearing cameras. This is a systemic problem throughout American policing, and until the government actually does something about it you're going to have more instances of abuse, violence and murder at the hands of these thugs in uniform.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Anyafaj

Turning off the camera is a violation of the sworn oath. They are not LEO's anymore.
Armed criminal street gangs. Think maybe it's time to put a stop to this?

Defund departments now.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Call me nuts, but doesn't he video open with the cop running a red light after the two cars make a left turn?

Anyhoo, I don't really trust a defense attorney who argues that the U-turn was legal--it crossed over a double solid-yellow line, and I'm quite certain that there is no city where that is legal, but I could absolutely be wrong.

I'll tell you what, though, the driver who was unwilling to comply with police commands after his passenger was apparently searched and found to have ammunition in his pockets AFTER a report of shots fired deserved to be yanked out of his damn vehicle. As for the kicks and tazing, I can't speculate because the video doesn't show the struggling efforts of the driver, and therefore I don't know--but I will say that I can't imagine in taking half a dozen cops to subdue this guy.

Excessive force, maybe; excessive number of officers, absolutely. They all seemed way too eager to jump in on the action and throw in a kick here and there. But hey...no fired off a double-tap, so in St. Louis, that's a start.

And why is the audio so damn poor on this camera? I've seen other dash-cam footage that has perfect audio outside of the vehicle. This is unacceptable to me--video does nothing much without accompanying audio in cases like these.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013
Things need to change, and it goes far beyond just having cameras.

1. Proper screening of applicants, weeding out the deranged, psychotic, bullying a**holes with daddy issues.
2. Removal of all military grade weaponry from Police departments.
3. Cameras that cannot be turned off, assigned to each officer. If it's off or damaged they do no leave the station.
4. Deliberate tampering of cameras is grounds for immediate dismissal.
5. A public body to investigate all cases brought against the police.
6. Use of force made the LAST RESORT in all cases, no excuses.
7. No more indictment processes, if someone was beaten or killed by a police officer and there is ANYTHING to suggest their statement is not 100% accurate or ANYTHING to suggest it was not handled to meet basic standards it goes to trial.


1. Agreed
2. "Military-grade" weapons are actually a good thing, and are not the same as military weapons. "Military-grade" just means that the weapons are built to very high standards and specs as to be able to withstand heavy use while being relatively easy to replace parts and service the weapons. I agree that military weapons, like tanks and the like, should not be in the hands of local law enforcement, but military-grade weapons are absolutely appropriate.
3. Agreed. I'd like to see them wired in to something like the communications-radio power source, so that if the radio is on (which it always is), the the camera is on, too. And like you said, it should be an item that, if not working, gets replaced before the cruiser leaves the station. Although, that may not be realistic, but it sure would be nice.
4. Agreed, to include turning them off during a call.
5. Agreed--policing one's self is a conflict of interest. It's much like a congressional investigation...
6. The problem there is that there are SCOTUS rulings that give LEOs a broad stroke of leeway in determining when such force is necessary. I'm not saying department standards and training shouldn't be increased, but we'd have to have SCOTUS rulings that overturn these other rulings to legally remove the subjective leeway that LEOs have concerning use of force.
7. I could get behind this, but again, it would necessitate a re-writing of our legal system as it stands now. Plus, you get into the realm of subjectivity again in determine what does or does not suggest a violation of basic standards. Like I said, SCOTUS in the 80s really sealed the deal for the ability of individual officers to determine when force is necessary. I just wish the bodies that investigate these incidents and prosecute them would remember that these officers should be held to a higher standard, not dismissed because of their uniform.



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join