Police Body Cam Footage VS. Your Cellphone Footage *Unreal*

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
At a press conference, Tuscaloosa Police Chief Steve Anderson said he immediately ordered an investigation. “Needless to say, once I started watching it, I was deeply disturbed by what I saw,” the chief said.

The edited or unedited version Mr. Anderson?

originally posted by: somungho
P.S. don't open the door to the cops WITHOUT A WARRANT sighed by a real judge "slipped under the door"

And sit there gun drawn to make sure they don't decide to just come in anyway........

All I can say is that in the first video, the part that's just audio? The most interesting thing is the tone and inflection and the words the cop uses, particularly the dramatic difference in how he addresses the people they arrest and then how he explains it to his own. That alone is very, very telling. Dude has some very serious issues he needs to work on if he gets to stay in this job. They need to blindfold him and make him listen to himself over and over.

a reply to: paraphi

In this video and in many others I see, it looks like the herd mentality to me. It starts off with one or two officers and then the rest just can't help but join in. Asking where the repercussion are is a good question. Paid vacations aren't exactly what I'd call a repercussion of bad behavior.

a reply to: chewi

I think we accept them into our society because up until recently, we didn't really have all of this video evidence. It was always a he said, she said thing. We also accept them because they can make your life a living hell if they feel they've somehow been done wrong. I do however think that their time is drawing nigh. At some point the people are going to get tired of it. It's only human nature.

I've for the body camera heck I'd like them to mount one on their weapons as well. Weapons is drawn the camera is turned on and only a third party can pull the video. But as I've said be for, if we get body cameras on the police they're not going to do us any good unless there are strict regulations on how they are used and treated.

If they make it so the camera is on at all time the police is on active duty and does not get paid for hours when it is off as this would be off duty time. If it's blocked or it's footage hampered in any way both image and sound, they have to fill out paperwork to get paid for those hours and have proof the camera has been fixed. Most law abiding police shouldn't run in to any problems with this.

Well we have lots of useless footage built up yes, but we can cull out the older footage as we should already know who's recordings we need and what time span we need.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

There are rumours that police are abusing steroids

Making them thugs

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Well, if there are no repercussions for police behaving badly, then the behaviour becomes accepted and normalised. Two things are needed to change behaviour.

1. Good leadership to challenge and change.
2. Public distaste for such behaviour. Not a riot, but a voice.

originally posted by: laminatedsoul
if they can edit it, obscure it in any way, it defeats the purpose of having it, in my opinion.

Right, but that only holds true for dishonest, rights-violating cops, which are the minority (although their stake in our police force does seem to be rising).

For the honest cops and the average interaction between LEOs and citizens, they're just fine.

With your logic, why have police reports? They can be edited and falsified, too. The reports and cameras aren't the problem, but they do serve a good purpose in the vast majority of interactions.

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe
Talk about being in a police state... Imagine what they could do under Martial Law.
Funny how the authorities will bend the truth by editing their own evidence, that is supposed to prevent misunderstandings of police interventions or conduct in the first place.
Probably a good idea to keep a log on incidents like this for future reference, in case something like this happens to yourself or anyone close to you.

Its hard to understand why, right off the bat, measures were not taken to ensure that body cam evidence go to some third party or something. We would be shocked, maybe, if we knew who had access to the cam footage at any point.

honestly thats why we as citizens need to start wearing hidden cameras or body cameras and not even tell police. every single once of us. because at the end of the day they will either try to snatch up your cell phone...tell you that you can film or become more aggressive/violent with you.

someone really needs to invent a citizen body cam that will automatically store the video evidence on your computer for viewing and evidence later.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: paraphi

I am surprised how rude and aggressive American police are. No people skills. Low social tolerance. Poorly trained.

Please. Not all American police officers behave in this manner. Nor do a majority. That does not excuse the assholes, but it is a fact.

well when the "good ones" cover knowing they are covering for the "bad ones" it makes it a vast majority of "bad ones".

It is what it is..

If I recall correctly, LEO's frequent say, "If you are not breaking the law, you have nothing to hide"

We've reached a point where ALL police officers, across the country need to be publicly identified individually on a website and searchable app, with the data stored on decentralized system, like a bit torrent, combined with the interface characteristics of Linkedin, IMDB and Wikipedia. Essentially a reverse "Megan's Law Registry" specifically for LEO profiles that aggregates ALL legally obtained, public information about individual LEO's, whom due to being public servants, can have some private information listed about them online for the public to view.

The main items this hypothetical website/App should include are a photo of the officer, badge number and all easily obtained publicly available information such as pay: job title, jurisdictions they have served in, years of service, which pension plans they are eligible for, etc. (Note, since LEO's work for state and local agencies this information must be made available to the public, per state law). The secondary items that should be shown, but would cost real money to obtain, should include findings from case law searches and Freedom of Information Act requests, listing ALL court cases the individual LEO has been involved in, police reports showing instances when an individual named LEO potentially caused the death of another human being, recorded paid leave and any current and past reprimands they may have received while employed as an officer. Note, the site should NEVER include items of speculation, such as personal comments, etc., just a laundry list of documented actions these officers took, but may have been officially labeled as, no fault, police immunity, etc.

If such a website existed ALL LEO's would know that their actions, in the field, will be following them around on the web for as long as they live. Since laws will NOT be changed to protect the public, the public needs to shame LEO's, using "Scarlet Letter" style tactics. Think about it, civilians would be able potentially to look up ANY individual officer and see how many times that person has been on "paid leave", due to the death of a civilian. Of course, LEO's with such reports attached to their name are not "legally guilty of manslaughter or murder", but if an officer has more than ONE instance listed under their name, it should safe to assume that they are indeed a danger to a average citizen and should be viewed with extreme caution.

Contemporary LEOs have proven, through their actions, that they are in place to do the following and NOTHING MORE:

1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local governments authorizing their activities.
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on the behalf of the big corporations)
5. Protecting the private property and political interests of large, influential, land & business owners, residing within their jurisdiction, that contribute to and participate in local politics (for example, those making campaign donations for local Police Chief, Sheriff, DA and judge elections).
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.

They’ve been totally co-opted, insulated from financial consequences and tax paying citizens are picking up the tab. Civilians, TODAY, should view the police no differently than police typically view the general public, that is, with suspicion.

The way things are set up now LEO's can just kill people, get fired, transfer to a new department, keep their retirement package and have the tax payers foot ensuing the lawsuit bills.

When an LEO kills someone and is found legally negligent, they should be INSTANTLY rendered un-insurable, due to having to pay out a large claim from their homeowner, renters or personal liability insurance policies etc.

When an LEO kills someone and is under review, the department and the officer should be investigated by an agency that is not part of or affiliated with the state police, district attorney's office or Internal Affairs and that agency should also have the powers to both arrest officers and force the DA to press charges. In fact, I'd argue, things have gotten so bad today, that we've also reached a point where the FBI should be doing these kinds of investigations on a regular basis, under a HUGE expanded budget.

When an LEO kills someone and is found either legally negligent or innocent of any wrongdoing, that "killing" should follow them around on paper for the rest of their lives, without exception, just like a false arrest, misdemeanor or felony would when a civilian gets a background check for employment.

Why, you say? Well, companies wouldn't hire people that got caught with a little weed in their car, even if it happened 20 years ago and that person was released without charges or acquitted in court, but somehow the same company would hire a retired LEO that killed another human being because "their old job said they were allowed legally to so".

Which "offense" is worse in the grand scheme of the universe?

Thats why I have suggested that police need even tighter rules of engagement than they have now, Even, if, it results in their death, firing or resignation. If such tight "rules of engagement" are good enough for US forces serving in a WAR ZONE, like Afghanistan today, than tight "rules of engagement" are "good enough" for domestic LEO's as well.

LEO's are not legally allowed to be judge, jury and executioners, they are ONLY enforcer of the law. People need to recognize that LEO's are NOTHING more than Public Servants that get a State Pension, just like a County Clerk would. LEO's should ALWAYS have to choose between surviving a dangerous conflict or losing their job. However, they are certainly "justified" to do their best to live another day, but that doesn't mean they should keep their job, if someone dies. Killing a civilian, should equal instant lay-off, firing or transfer to administration/operations roles that do not have arresting powers, justified shooting or not. If such were the case, I can GUARANTEE, that "incidents" of fatal shootings would drop off a cliff.

LEO's have far too much responsibility within American society to be given ANY leeway or compromise. In fact, policing should be a temporary position, with no long term employees "on the beat" with arresting powers. Veteran LEO should eventually be moved into admin positions that have no authority to arrest, in effect, having a type of LEO term-limits. Police and law enforcement agencies need a checks and balances system because the current unions, no-fault shootings, and liability payouts, covered by local/state governments have made these guys little "teflon don's".

Civilians should NOT trust the motivations of LEO's and MUST always assume that their live are in danger, with EVERY interaction they have with LEO's.

Why? Not because ALL LEO's are bad, but because ALL LEO's are LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to kill civilians, as they see fit, with little risk of legal or financial consequences.

So, why should civilians take the risk of death, when its far easier to not interact, not help and outright avoid LEO's, whom are LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to kill civilians, as they see fit?

S&F thanks for this. The comparison and whether there's a difference is what I wondered about. Very sad and telling what's being dealt with here.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Indeed it is. I think we all assume things like this happen, but when you actually see it... it's still a little mind blowing.

It's troubling to say the least.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Well, if there are no repercussions for police behaving badly, then the behaviour becomes accepted and normalised. Two things are needed to change behaviour.

1. Good leadership to challenge and change.
2. Public distaste for such behaviour. Not a riot, but a voice.

I just dont think that they listen to our voices. I mean lets face it. People voice their distaste for government/police all the time and they go ignored. They are the ones in positions of power, they don't need to listen to us. And they never will.

Unfortunately, as sad as I think it is. If we want an honest, decent government with an honest, decent police force we need to force out the current scum. They wont leave willingly or stop what they are currently doing.

originally posted by: Silicis n Volvo
I just dont think that they listen to our voices. I mean lets face it. People voice their distaste for government/police all the time and they go ignored. They are the ones in positions of power, they don't need to listen to us. And they never will.

Unfortunately, as sad as I think it is. If we want an honest, decent government with an honest, decent police force we need to force out the current scum. They wont leave willingly or stop what they are currently doing.

This is correct, here is an example of a sleepy county in Oregon, that is 92% white, with 56% of the population over 45 years of age, yet that community still VOTED TO DE-FUND ITS POLICE DEPARTMENT because they got sick of receiving unjust traffic tickets:

Defunding government is a sensible voter solution to reining in local government By Dave Duffy

Think about that for a minute, if LEO's can't hold the trust of small communities with these kinds of demographics, what chance do they stand anywhere else? Not much. This should be a VERY CLEAR message that LEO's, in general, have lost the trust of the public.

If these LEO's that kill civilians, really cared and were not sociopaths, they'd quit the job as soon as they killed someone on accident, even if legally cleared. Note, very few if ANY of these officers "protecting & serving" have left their positions or the profession out of "guilt" for their crimes/mistakes. The fact that they just suck it up and keep on driving, assures me that they are NOT sane. Its nothing like being in the military where you can be jailed and prosecuted for not following a legal order to "kill the enemy".

LEO's CAN QUIT ANYTIME THEY WANT TO and when they don't resign after doing something unconscionable, it strongly suggests that they are potentially dangerous to the public. So when these LEO's keep working in the same role, after killing a civilian, I can't help but assume that the individual is a sociopath, out for the "power of the position" and not for "protecting & serving" civilians.

Context, can also DRASTICALLY change how police actions are viewed, in hindsight, by HISTORY. A lot of "cops" (Ordnungspolizei) got killed by civilians during WWII. For those that do not know the Ordnungspolizei were civilian police forces that were absorbed by the SS and bound to follow their edicts

Take Edith Flagg for example, a FAMOUS fashion designer, that immigrated to to the USA after WWII, whom before she died, at 94 years old, was worth $100 million (she is the grandmother of Josh Flagg, from the Bravo TV show, Million Dollar Listing Los Angeles). Edith Flagg chose to FIGHT for her life when confronted by LEO's breaking the law. Is she a criminal, TODAY, in hindsight?

If so, than why was she not arrested and charged once she admitting to murdering someone on national television?

In an exclusive bonus clip, Edith answers a question Josh had asked years ago: "Has she ever shot a gun?" Edith says that not only did she use a gun—she used it to kill someone during World War II. Edith reveals that she was faced with a him-or-me situation when asked for her papers, and did what she had to do to protect herself.

I ask the obvious question: “Why didn’t you run?” Mrs. Flagg gives the obvious answer: “Where am I running to?

Taking on the identity and paperwork of a deceased woman, Lydia Voskuilen, she lived among the enemy and fooled them all -- day in, day out. “She walked around in a Red Cross nurse uniform and spoke German impeccably so they had no idea she was Jewish,” Josh elaborates. “She used to swim with the Nazis in the morning. She would go into the lake and spy on them to hear what they were saying.”

We have come full circle, except now, LEO's don't regularly "exterminate" undesirables, they simply put them in jail indefinitely, for petty offenses, so someone can make money off their existence while in the system, via a government contract.

Santana didn’t trust the police to do the right thing with the evidence, and why should he? He saw an officer, Michael Slager, shoot an unarmed man in the back, plant evidence on the body and stand calmly as fellow officers arrived at the scene and did nothing to help the dying man on the ground. Santana didn’t know who Walter Scott was, but he understood that what he had just witnessed was a crime committed by an officer of law, who would then go on to lie about what had happened in order to cover up a murder.

‘The police are supposed to be the good guys,’ Man claims he was beaten by Purcell officer, “I just started screaming for someone to help me, and he began hitting me even harder and faster,” Barger said.

Man Tells Cops They Can't Search His Home Without A Warrant, Cops Kick His Down Door & Kill Him

Civilians now have a BIG choice to make, do they want to be Chris Barger, John David Livingston or do they want to be Edith Flagg? Both Chris and Edith were roughly the same age when they encountered legalized oppression. One cried out for help and got none, while the other took action and lived another day.

As for the "Oath's" that LEO's typically take, lets use the LAPD oath for example, which seems to be MOSTLY concerned with swearing to not overthrow the government:

"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means. I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."

Here is another sample Oath, that focuses on "Peace with the Communities" within the "Sovereign Country and State":

I SWEAR,, THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR ILL-WILL - UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE ­ OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER

So exactly how, do these above noted sample Oaths, keep officers from "picking and choosing" when they attempt to "save someone from death or injury" due to having no LEGAL obligation to act? Other than of course, having the LEGAL obligation to keep "Peace with the Communities" within the "Sovereign Country and State" and also swearing to not overthrow the government.